Academic literature on the topic '1858 Ottoman Penal Code'

In the XIX. century, Ottoman State has witnessed changes in many areas. Looking at the content of both the dated 1840 and the dated 1851 Penal Codes legislated in Tanzimat Era, it has seen that the transformation in criminal procedure, judicial system, administrative fields was attempted to be accommodated with penal codes.&nbsp;&nbsp;The aim of this study is to seek answers to the question of how the criminal law of the Ottoman State changed in the period starting with the 1858 Penal Code in the nineteenth century within scope of&nbsp;<em>ta&lsquo;zir</em>(discretionary punishment) and more particularly, crime of murder and complicity as one of special forms of crime. The discussions of the criminal law scholars of the period about the nature of Article 45 regarding complicity in the 1858 Penal Code and their seeking solutions and how they developed new rules due to need in the process and at this point how they benefited from European penal codes, commentaries and their scholars will be attempted to demonstrate. More importantly, it will be witnessed how Ottoman judges used the classical principles in their minds when implementing the article of code. However, when looking from a broad perspective, we will see how the Classical Law School, in which Ottoman State was included through it&rsquo;s 1858 Penal Code, and the crime policy of France and the French Penal Code have influenced Ottoman Criminal Law.

The penal code of 1858 was an important step in Ottoman legislation during the reform period (tanẓīmāt) and had a considerable impact on the concept of the state as the guardian of public order. Through the 20th century the penal code of 1858 was generally interpreted as a “(literal) translation” of the French Code Pénal of 1810 and as evidence for the “western influence” on Ottoman legislation. Recent research has started to question this interpretation, focussed more closely on the normative aspects of the Ottoman penal code and analysed the penal code of 1858 as an adaptation of French law within the context of the Ottoman legal concepts during the tanẓīmāt. In my article I analyse the text as a part of political communication, as a monologue by which the state adresses its subjects. Even if large parts of the Ottoman penal code are translations from the French, the rhetoric patterns and terminology have to be taken seriously. The amalgamation of traditional rhetorics and a new terminology turns out to be a successful strategy to legitimise new legal concepts, which include a new relation between ḳānūn and şerīʿat. In my article I will argue that the state’s traditional role as the guardian of public order is the starting point for the introduction of these new legal concepts.

While the Prophet was alive, the companions had consulted to him personally for the solution of every religious matter and to the Qur&#39;an and Sunnah after his death. On the issues that they could not find information in the two sources mentioned, they have made judgments by making ijtihad. Those who were not at the level to make ijtihad obtained information by consulting people who were experts in religious matters. The Muslims who came after them continued to follow the same path. Later, fatwa books were prepared, and these works began to be used in the field of qada as well as fatwa. Although the proposal for the codification of Islamic law was made by Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ (d. 142/759) at a very early period, the act of codification started too late. The legalization activity in the modern western world started at the end of the 18th century and spread to the whole European continent in the 19th century. The Ottoman Empire, influenced by the West, started the act of codification in the modern sense with the Penal Code of 1840. The codification of civil law in the Islamic world started with al-Majalla al Ahkam al Adliyyah (The Ottoman Courts Manual). Hukūk-i Aile Kararnamesi (the Family Law Decree) which was issued in 1917, followed al-Majalla in the field of codification. These two laws, which were prepared based on Islamic law, were applied in many countries under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Even these two laws continued to be in force in some other Islamic countries a long time after they were declared abolished in the Republic of Turkey. With these works, the Ottoman Empire became a pioneer for other Islamic countries, and later, other Islamic countries took these as an example and prepared and put into effect their civil laws. One of these countries is Afghanistan. Although Afghanistan was not under Ottoman rule, it was directly or indirectly influenced by Ottoman law in enacting and took Ottoman law as an example. While the first penal code was being prepared in Afghanistan, the penal code (Ceza Kanunnāme-i H&uuml;māyunu), which was enacted by the Ottoman Empire in 1858, was taken as a basis. Some articles of the aforementioned Ottoman Penal Code of 1958 were incorporated into the Afghan penal code of 1921 (Nizamnāme-i Cezā-yı Umūmī), either as they are, with little or no change. It is stated that judges should be made according to al-Majalla and that the qadis should fill the gaps in the law with al-Majallaon some issues in the laws named &ldquo;Usūlnāme-i İdāri-yi Mahākim-i Adliye&rdquo; (Administration of Judicial Courts Law) of 1957 and &ldquo;Usūl-i İjraati Muhākimāt-ı Huqūqī-yi Adlī&rdquo; (the Practice of Judicial Jurisdiction) of 1958.When we look at the Afghan Civil Code, which came into force in 1977, we see that it was influenced by the Majalla and the Ottoman Hukūk-ı Āile Kararnamesi (Ottoman Law of the Family Decree). In the same way, Majalla and its annotations have been used in Afghan courts in addition to the Afghan Civil Code until today. It is seen that in the Afghan Civil Code, which was prepared based on Hanafī fiqh, some issues were out of Hanafī fiqh, and in this respect, the Ottoman Law of Family Decree was followed. In this article, the effects of Ottoman law on Afghan law will be discussed in the context of criminal law, family law, and law of obligations.

The aim of this study is to challenge the stereotypes that non-heterosexual orientation and various gender identities are not manifestations of either a “decadent West” or a passing trend. On the contrary, heterosexism and homophobia intensified and became dominant doctrines during the 19th and 20th centuries, even in societies where same-sex relationships were not initially criminally persecuted. In my legal-historical analysis, I focus not only on the period after the restoration of Bulgarian statehood following the adoption of the First Constitution in 1879 but also on the time before that, when Bulgarian society existed within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire during the Tanzimat era. An important moment for the analysis is the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships in 1858 in the Ottoman Penal Code. I will also provide examples from the development of Bulgarian criminal law, which often included provisions criminalising sexual contacts between individuals of the same sex.

Abstract This case study explores the experimentation phase of the Ottoman Tanzimat reforms on the criminal justice system in the city of Rusçuk from 1839-64. In particular, it investigates crime and punishment by focusing on police, courts, and prisons and how these institutions responded to reform efforts in Rusçuk, which became the capital of the Danube Province in 1864. It shows that the Ottoman government established new police forces (zaptiye) and modernised prisons in the city in 1846 immediately after their introduction in the imperial capital of Istanbul. At the same time, the government bestowed extensive judicial authority on the meclis-i kebir (a secular administrative council in the provinces), and to a lesser extent on the meclis-i muvakkat (temporary council), over criminal cases. While the Sharia courts continued to enforce Islamic criminal law, the meclis-i kebir took charge of enforcing the new penal codes of 1840, 1851, and 1858, and served as a precursor first to the secular courts of the 1864 Provincial Reform and then to the more centralised and standardised nizamiye courts of the 1870s. This study also analyses the types and frequency of crimes and the penalties they received. Based on Rusçuk’s prison registers, which contain the cases tried by the meclis-i kebir and meclis-i muvakkat, and the records of the meclis-i vala (Supreme Court) in Istanbul, it argues that the crime rate in Rusçuk was much higher than the one represented in the Sharia court’s records.

The defenses of Duress, Self-Defense (or private defense) and Necessity are today set forth in sections 21, 22 and 22A, respectively, of the Israel Penal Law, 1977. However, in order to understand these defenses fully, it is necessary to go back to the provisions of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936, wherein the ruling British Mandatory authorities replaced the Ottoman Penal Law which had prevailed in Palestine before the Mandate. For, its name to the contrary notwithstanding, the 1977 Penal Law was not primarily an original Israeli enactment. Rather, it was in considerable measure merely a Hebrew translation of the original Criminal Code Ordinance. This is especially the case in connection with the Ordinance's General Part, which includes the defenses that concern us here. It was only in 1992 that the Knesset enacted original Israeli legislation concerning these defenses.

AbstractThe return of Ottoman rule to Aleppo in 1840 corresponded with the inauguration of the reform era (1839-76). Although the central Ottoman state could not have foreseen the outcome, these political reforms undermined its economic sovereignty in two key areas. The Ottoman land reform law of 1858 and schemes to settle the Bedouin in northern Syria enabled Aleppo’s political elite to scramble for the steppe lands of the Euphrates valley and ultimately paved the way for European capitalists to exploit the agricultural resources of the region. Additionally, attempts to control the abuses of the capitulatory system provoked a marked decline in the relative fortunes of the city’s traditional commercial elite, with much of the internal regional trade shifting into the hands of European merchants.Le retour des Ottomans à Alep en 1840 correspond au début de la période de réformes (1839-1876). Bien que l’état central ottoman n’eût pas pu prévoir leurs conséquences, ces réformes politiques ont miné sa souveraineté économique dans deux régions clé. Le code foncier ottomane de 1858 et les projets visant à la sédentarisation des Bédouins dans la Syrie du Nord ont permis à l’élite politique d’Alep une ruée vers les steppes de la vallée de l’Euphrate et ont fini par préparer le chemin aux capitalistes européens qui sont venus exploiter les ressources agricoles de la région. En outre, les tentatives d’obtenir le contrôle des abus du système capitulaire ont provoqué le déclin marqué des fortunes concernées de l’élite commerciale traditionnelle car une grande partie du commerce intérieure régio-nale tombait dans les mains des négociants européens.

AbstractIn 1349 Stefan Dušan enacted a code that was part of a tripartite codification with the Abridged syntagma and the so-called Law of Justinian. The Serbian emperor introduced in his empire a Byzantine legal system, even if elements of Slavic customary law were preserved. Physical mutilations and punishments, death penalty, public penal system, personal liability were unknown to the Slav populations and have to be connected to the Greek-Roman law influence. This influence is evident both in civil and criminal law and in this sense the dispositions of the Code of Dušan must be connected to the two other Byzantine compilations. Dušan's attempt failed just a few years after his death because of the fall of the Serbian empire due to the Ottoman advance.

Anthropology and history employ two entirely different research methodologies: anthropological research is based on face-to-face interviews and direct observation, while historians eschew all forms of non-documented information, and generally assume that only the written word and maps are reliable. Exploiting the different relative advantages of these two disciplines, together with GIS (Geographic Information Systems), it was possible to locate and situate historical events from different periods in the physical landscape in which they took place. Such a “mixed methodological approach” yielded information that would otherwise not be found. This is illustrated in a study of the development of rural estates in the Galilee, consequent on the promulgation of the Ottoman Land Code in 1858.

The nineteenth century was an era that great centralization and codification attempts were realized in the Ottoman Empire. One of these attempts was the Ottoman Land Code of 1858, which put various land regulations throughout the empire into a standard code. But this standard Code gave different results when applied to different regions which had their own characteristic features. Eastern Anatolia, which had an autonomous position since its incorporation to the Ottoman Empire, was also in the scope of the Land Code. The object of this study is to examine the implementation of the Land Code of 1858 in eastern Anatolia and the impacts of this implementation process in the region. Indeed, the general situation of the region greatly disaffected the implementation of the Code in eastern Anatolia. Because of the dominant disorder within the region and problems of the state in these lands, the Land Code could not be properly implemented in eastern Anatolia. The Land Code and the title deeds, which were distributed in accordance with the Code, were so important that they became the base of later ownership claims. Therefore, the implementation of the Code had deep and long lasting effects on the land patterns and social relations in the region. In this respect, this study will evaluate the implementation process of the Land Code throughout eastern Anatolia and the socio-economic transformation of the region as a result of this process.

Using Arabic and Ottoman Turkish sources drawn from three genres of legal text, this book is the first full-length study in decades to investigate the evolution of Ottoman land law from its "classical" articulation in the sixteenth century to its reformulation in the 1858 Land Code. The book demonstrates that well before the nineteenth century the tradition of Ottoman land tenure law had developed an indigenous form of property right that would remain intact in the Land Code. In addition, the rising consensus of the jurists that the sultan was the source of the land law paved the way for the wider legislative authority that the Ottoman state would increasingly assert in the Tanzimat period of reform. Demonstrating the profound and ongoing adaptation of a legal tradition that was at once both Ottoman and Islamic, it revises our understanding of the relationship between the modern Islamic world and its early modern past, and what kind of intervention was represented by reform in the 19th century.

Abstract This chapter studies honor in the Ottoman legal praxis, particularly concerning the new Tanzimat penal codes of the nineteenth century. It mainly focuses on the 1858 Penal Code as the first criminal code that codified honor extensively in a comprehensive section devoted to various sexual offenses. It argues that the centralizing state of the Tanzimat expanded its control over the private sphere of its subjects. The state claimed to assert itself as the supreme arbiter of morality by entrusting women’s sexuality to its male subjects to control. Nevertheless, this gendered construction of morality based on honor has undermined its claims of creating a novel universal citizenship/subjecthood. This study also argues that the 1858 Penal Code was part of global codification movements in which the Napoleonic Code Pénal has been adapted according to local needs. Thus, it reveals how the section on sexual offenses and public outrage in the Code Pénal and the French gendered norms have been translated and adapted to the Ottoman moral codes of family and patriarchal honor with the introduction of ırz.

This chapter begins to set the historical background for the book by outlining in detail the state of affairs in the Negev during the last period of Ottomans rule in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Focusing on tribal-state relations, the chapter explores the late Ottoman modes of governance, and traces changing Ottoman policies and practices in the region. More specifically, the chapter addresses the founding of the Beersheba sub-district, and seeks to understand the land regime that existed prior, during and after the Ottoman reforms (Tanzimat), especially the introduction of the 1858 Ottoman Land Code (OLC).