Journal articles on the topic '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 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.

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.

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.

During the 19th century, Ottoman law was influenced by the West. The Tanzimat reforms marked the beginning of criminal codification in the Ottoman Empire, whose Penal Code was adopted in 1858. It was modern in terms of format and content, and it differed from the penal laws of 1840 and 1851. Its first article stated that it shall not repeal the provisions of Sharia law. This dual nature of the code caused a lot of confusion. The complete replacement of Sharia law with modern European law did not happen suddenly, but gradually. This was necessary for the government to embrace the new ideas and understandings of the modern societies at that time. Therefore, the attempts of the Ottoman authorities to modernize the Empire’s laws, particularly the ONK, cannot be denied.

İslam’ın önem atfederek korunmasını istediği birtakım değerler vardır. Bu koruma şahsi bir görevden çok kamu otoritesine ait bir ödevdir. Zira bu değerleri hedef alan suçlara yönelik yaptırımları uygulama, bazı durumlarda yeni yaptırımlar vazetme yetkisi kamu otoritesine aittir. Dolayısıyla kamu otoritesinin adil ve güvenilir bir şekilde işlemesi gerekmektedir. Otoriteye karşı güveni ve adalet hissini zedeleyen en büyük suçlardan biri rüşvettir. Tanzimat Dönemi’nde rüşvetle mücadelede kanunlaştırılmaya gidilmiş, rüşvet suçuyla ilgili çeşitli düzenlemeler yapılmıştır. Çalışmada Tanzimat Dönemi kanunlarında rüşvet suçuyla ilgili düzenlemeler kronolojik ve mukayeseli şekilde incelenmiştir. Öncesinde ise Osmanlı’da resmî mezhep hüviyetindeki Hanefîlik açısından rüşvet suçu ele alınmıştır. Böylelikle Hanefî fıkhından son Osmanlı ceza kanununa kadar geçen süreçte rüşvet suçuna dair düzenlemelerde meydana gelen değişiklikler izlenmiştir. Sonuç itibarıyla zamanla kanun metinlerindeki fıkhî terimlerin ortadan kalktığı, Batı kanun sistematiğine uygun daha teknik, kısa ve açık ifadelere yer verildiği görülmüştür. Ayrıca rüşvet suçuyla alakalı kısa sürede birden çok ve sık aralıklarla düzenlemeler yapılması rüşvetin ne denli yaygınlaştığını ve bu suçla mücadelenin ne denli zor olduğunu göstermiştir.

In the period of the 19th century the Ottoman law felt the West influence, which additionally had affected its legal language. The reforms of the Tanzimat also marked the beginning of criminal law codification in the Empire. The Penal Code – adopted in 1858 – was much more modern in form and content, differing significantly from the Acts of 1840 and 1851. Its first article states that it does not override the criminal provisions of Sharia law. This dual nature creates confusion. The replacement of Sharia law entirely by modern European law did not happen suddenly. Changes require time, which is also necessary for the government to adopt the innovative ideas and understandings of the then modern societies. Therefore, on could nor deny the attempts of the Ottoman authorities to modernize the laws and the OPC.

One feature distinguishing the fiqh madhhabs (sects) that emerged in Islamic history from each other is their theological and philosophical views. When the jurisprudence of the madhhabs is analysed, it is seen that the practical rulings emerge according to a particular theological and philosophical background. For example, the ontological background of the Ḥanafīs is reflected in their views on property, which one of the most fundamental issues of law. They considered existence from a material point of view. They did not accept the benefits that do not have a material existence and that arise depending on the substance of material assets as property in law. What is not property cannot be damaged. Therefore, it cannot be compensated. The Ḥanafīs adhered to their ontological principles to maintain their legal consistency. However, these principles caused some problems to arise over time. Although they overcame these problems with the principle of necessity, this was not enough to eliminate the problem. This problem came to the agenda even in the last periods of the Ottoman Empire. However, there was a new systematics in the field of law then. The issue was dealt with in the articles of law, not in the theoretical texts in which the accumulated knowledge of the madhhab was transmitted. The ontological principles of the Ḥanafīs were distributed to many areas of law within the new system. However, in the last period of the Ottoman Empire and contemporary studies, only the part of the subject reflected in the law of obligations has been addressed. However, areas such as the Press Law and the Penal Code seem to have been ignored, as well. When the other legal texts are analysed, a situation different from that in Med̲j̲elle stands out. The Press Law and the Penal Code had already done what the Med̲j̲elle commissions could do much later. In these laws, things that do not exist in material terms are legally recognized as property.

In Ottoman criminal law, intentional homicide and theft were classified under the category of "hudud" (fixed punishments), and their penalties were predetermined and unchangeable. On the other hand, ta'zir punishments may be applied in cases where the elements of the crime were not fully established to warrant hudud punishments or where the offense had no fixed penalty under the law. This study aims to examine the discretionary punishments (ta'zir) that were applied instead of the prescribed penalties (hudud and qisas) for crimes that have established rulings under the fundamental principles of Islamic criminal law as documented in the 'Katl ve Sirkat Defteri' (Murder and Theft Book). The research will explore how these punishments were implemented in practice, and under what conditions and circumstances discretionary punishments were applied for crimes with fixed penalties. The study will explore the procedures for bringing such cases to court, the investigative and decision-making stages, and whether the sentences maintained a balance between the crime and punishment. Additionally, it will seek to identify the factors that either mitigated or aggravated the severity of the imposed punishments. This article, enriched with documents from various classifications in the Ottoman archives, examines both the 1256 Penal Code and the scope of the 1267 reforms. It aims to analyze how the processes of change and adaptation in Ottoman criminal law during the Tanzimat era influenced the application of crime and punishment.

özEr Kulan-ı&nbsp;Kerim&#39;de,&nbsp;Sünneite, Osmanlı&nbsp;Kanunnameleri&#39;nde,&nbsp;Türk&nbsp;Ceza Kanunu&#39;nda, Kabahatler Kanunu&#39;nda dilencilikJe ilgili hükümler&nbsp;yer&nbsp;almıştır. Hemenhepsinde&nbsp;dilencilele&nbsp;muamelede yumuşaklük tavsiye edilmekle&nbsp;beraber&nbsp;ıslah edilmesi ve engellenmesiyle alakah talepler de mevcuftur. Asılar&nbsp;boyu,&nbsp;&quot;veren&nbsp;el,&nbsp;alan&nbsp;elden üstijndüı&quot; düstürunu&nbsp;şiar&nbsp;edinmiş ve bunu hayat&nbsp;biğmi&nbsp;telakki etmiş&nbsp;olan&nbsp;Baybuıtlu,&nbsp;yokluğun&nbsp;ve&nbsp;açlığün&nbsp;ne demek&nbsp;olduğunu tecrube&nbsp;etmiş&nbsp;olsa&nbsp;bile,&nbsp;en&nbsp;acsr:ı.&nbsp;maruz kaldüğı işgaller srasünda tatmıştır.&nbsp;Hiçbikimsenin, hele onuruna&nbsp;dijşkün&nbsp;hiçbir müslümanın tasvip edemeyeceği bir davranış olan dilenciliğin&nbsp;o&nbsp;dönemde&nbsp;Baybwt&nbsp;ve&nbsp;çevresinde&nbsp;de&nbsp;yayılmaya&nbsp;başladığını&nbsp;görmek, gelinen&nbsp;acı&nbsp;noktanın hangi aşamada olduğunu&nbsp;göstermesi&nbsp;açısündan mijhimdir. Makalemizde;&nbsp;hiçbir menleket&nbsp;ahalisinin&nbsp;böyle kötü&nbsp;bk&nbsp;duruma&nbsp;d4çarolmaması; insanımızın bugünlerde unutmaya&nbsp;yüz&nbsp;tuttuğu;&nbsp;yardümsevelik&nbsp;vebaşkalan&nbsp;için&nbsp;yaşana&nbsp;gibi güzel&nbsp;hasletleini&nbsp;kaybetınemesi;&nbsp;devlet icalimizin&nbsp;bumevzuda gerekli&nbsp;tedbilei&nbsp;alması&nbsp;temennisi&nbsp;ile&nbsp;yaklaşık&nbsp;bh&nbsp;asn önce&nbsp;Bayburt&#39;unyaptüğı&nbsp;bu&nbsp;güzel&nbsp;ömekliğin&nbsp;hem ülkeniz&nbsp;hem&nbsp;de dünya&nbsp;için önemi üzeinde durulacaktır. ABSTRACT Bayburt Sample&nbsp;For The&nbsp;conflict With Begging There&nbsp;are sone&nbsp;decrees about begging in the Quran, hadiths,&nbsp;ottoman&nbsp;Lawcodes, Misdeneanor Law and&nbsp;Turkish&nbsp;Penal&nbsp;code.&nbsp;Almost&nbsp;all of&nbsp;them&nbsp;advice&nbsp;to behave beggars&nbsp;with&nbsp;tolerance. However they also&nbsp;offer to&nbsp;prevent&nbsp;and improve&nbsp;thekunfavorable conditions. The&nbsp;philosophy&nbsp;of&nbsp;&quot;People, vıho give something, has&nbsp;superior$&nbsp;rather than take it&quot; has&nbsp;been&nbsp;adopted&nbsp;by&nbsp;the&nbsp;people&nbsp;of Baybuıt.&nbsp;By&nbsp;the way, they&nbsp;applied&nbsp;this philosophy&nbsp;to&nbsp;their daily&nbsp;life.&nbsp;Afthough, they have experienced&nbsp;the&nbsp;poveıly&nbsp;and famine before, these&nbsp;people&nbsp;faced&nbsp;off with&nbsp;them especially when the enemies attacked&nbsp;them.Begging&nbsp;is&nbsp;not an acceptable behaviour, especially for the Muslim&nbsp;people&nbsp;consider their honour. When enemies attacked to Bayburt, begging staıted&nbsp;to&nbsp;increase&nbsp;there. Ih,.s&nbsp;ascension has an importance that indicates&nbsp;the&nbsp;level&nbsp;of&nbsp;begging, ln&nbsp;this article,&nbsp;We&nbsp;hope that anyone falls&nbsp;in&nbsp;this&nbsp;bad&nbsp;situation, and&nbsp;our&nbsp;peopledo&nbsp;not&nbsp;forget the emotions such as&nbsp;pertaining&nbsp;to&nbsp;char$,&nbsp;and living&nbsp;for&nbsp;the others. We also hope that, our government&nbsp;makes&nbsp;provision&nbsp;in&nbsp;case of protect the&nbsp;people&nbsp;from begging.&nbsp;ln&nbsp;the light&nbsp;of&nbsp;Baybuıt&#39;s&nbsp;nice&nbsp;behaviour occurred about&nbsp;a centuıy ago,&nbsp;its impoılance&nbsp;will&nbsp;be mentioned.

The Ottoman labour market was shaped around the basic principles and rules determined by the state. According to these principles and rules, among the needs of the state, military needs ranked first, and among them, the labour force requirement of the navy was at the top. Voluntary work was desired in the general labour policy in the Ottoman Empire. However, when labour force cannot be provided by volunteers due to insufficient supply of labour, as a necessity, prisoners were resorted to among alternative sources of labour. In parallel with the expansion of the lands and the growth of the navy in the Ottoman Empire, the labour deficit reached serious dimensions. For this reason, convicts were first employed as oarsmen in the navy from the 16th century onwards. Although there was a significant decrease in the need for oarsmen on ships because of the changes in naval technology, the employment of galley slaves was not abandoned. As a result of this, prisoners began to be employed in shipyards, though not on ships. On the other hand, upon seeing the expected benefit in convict labour, later, with the regulations made in the penal codes of the Tanzimat period, conviction of galley slave became permanent. In this research, the contribution of galley slaves to the labor market is tried to be analysed specifically for the Ottoman navy in the historical process starting from the Ottoman classical period and continuing until after the Tanzimat.