The Legal Figures in the Ottoman Empire
	The rule and dominance of the Ottoman Empire stretched over immense territories and peoples, and maintained this rule over centuries.  As a Ruling Institution, each Sultan and his bureaucracy had to govern this ever changing, diverse society and territory, by abiding by and revering a Sacred Law that was as rigid as the boundaries of the Empire were fluid.    The Sacred Law required guarding, interpreting, administering and supplementing; the Sultan and the Ulema, or learned men, along with the Judges carried out these duties.  Controlling the Empire through the inflexibility of the Sacred Law meant creating ways in which to supplement the law while still respecting tradition.  This was feasible by allowing a number of minorities to maintain their own, customary governance regimes.  However, these minority systems were maintained on a much smaller scale, always subject to the Sacred Law, and as part of the Sultan’s Ruling Institution, as opposed to independent, and auxiliary to it.  
The Fall of Constantinople and the Birth of the Ottoman Empire
	For reasons this paper will not address due to length constraints, the Byzantine Empire during the fourteenth century and the first half of the fifteenth had become weakened.  The power and status of the Ottoman Empire had been growing simultaneously to the Byzantine Empire’s deterioration.  On May 29, 1453, Constantinople fell to Sultan Mehmed II (also spelled Mehmet) and the reign on the Ottoman Empire was solidified.  In order to preserve the relatively peaceful relations between the numerous religious and ethnic communities of the Byzantine Empire, and to rebuild and restore the cities and the capital in Mehmed’s own image, Mehmed consciously organized millets or “flocks”.  One scholar described this mission as the “true image of what was to be the fundamental feature of this state: the welding together of the indigenous cultural traditions of the old Byzantine orbit, and occidental influences, with the traditions of Islam.”
	The millets were self-governing communities of different religious minorities.  Under the millet system, the Christian and Armenian church as well as the Jewish synagogue, were subordinate to the Islamic state and law.  In order to accomplish this subordination, the minority religious communities retained the freedom of worship, could observe their own customs and laws and seek guidance from their own religious leaders, who were held responsible for the peace of their communities.  So even though many smaller communities maintained their own legal system for intra-community matters, Islamic law was the law of the land and took precedent.  
	In a letter to Uzun Hassan, a friend of Mehmed II, he said “Our Empire is the home of Islam; from father to son the lamp of our Empire is kept burning with oil from the hears of the infidels.”  
	Even though there was a great and omnipotent shift in power and rule when the Byzantine Empire fell to the Ottoman, the leaders of the minority communities and religions did not fight against the new Empire and its rulers.  The royal appointments were normally given through sums of cash at first and then when he was appointed, he was granted tax exemptions and “extensive legal and fiscal autonomy within his community.  Despite the gifts of wealth and power, the freedoms enjoyed by all the minority communities depended upon the allowances of the Sultan.  As an example, Mehmed appointed Gennadius, a monk within the Greek Orthodox Church who was well known already as a great scholar and leader, to be the new Greek Orthodox Patriarch.  
	Mehmed promised Gennadius “at least in principle, freedom to manage their own affairs, both religious and some extent secular, without interference or fear of persecution”.  Once enthroned as the Patriarch, Gennadius had complete authority over his millet, was in essence thrown a massive public celebration at the Sultan’s request, was given his own civil court, prison, white horses for personal use and a large gift of gold.  On top of this, he was given a lavish home next to other patriarchs of different communities or religions.  The patriarchs of the other religions, such as the Jewish community, enjoyed relatively the same prestige and power in exchange for his loyalty to the Ottoman Empire and the Sultan.
	Even though there was always a Muslim Court or an attempt at displaying the rule of Sacred Law and the Ottoman Empire, there were vast areas of the Ottoman Empire where Muslims were the minority.  In Bulgaria and Greece during the sixteenth century, the majority of citizens were Greek Orthodox.   In the outlying conquered territories, such as Albania or Kurdistan, or the Desert of Arabia, the ancient tribal organizations and customary structure remained in power, but under the dominance of the Sultan.  In turn for their recognition of his rule and as part of the Ottoman Empire, the “hereditary chieftains” were given Ottoman titles and often were exempt themselves from taxation, but not their people.  
The Sacred Law
	Without discussing the substance of Sheri law, or the Sacred Law, a foundation of the law is required to better understand the role the Sultan, judges and Mufti’s play in relation to it.  The Sacred Law came directly from “Divine Revelation”.   
“God has made known His Eternal Word to mankind in the Quran, which He had revealed through the Prophet Muhammad.”  
	The Quran was the main authority of the law; however, the “record of sayings and actions of the Prophet, whom God has chosen as an exemplar to mankind” was a prolific source of the law.  The sayings and the traditions of the Prophet was a much richer source of the law than the Quran because they interpreted the law through in depth discussion set forth in tales, examples and rituals.
	While any entity in power, or any sultan could not alter the law, because it was from God, scholars did further interpret and convey the law.  Inside of Sacred Law there were divisions of thought or interpretation based on the works of early disciples of the prophet.   These early disciples created schools of thought that would be studied in colleges and administered in the courts.  Creating even more divisions, inside each school of law, there were varieties of opinions.  Similar to state judges following precedent within their own state, jurists would follow the legal opinions of earlier jurists.  But instead of following precedent in their states, the jurists followed earlier jurists’ opinions who would be either a school’s founder, or early disciples.    
	The differences between the doctrines of the schools were not great but, once established, each school became virtually impervious to the influences of the others.”  Jurists were dedicated to upholding and defending the doctrines of their particular schools.  The small differences that there were between the schools were strictly adhered to.  However, there was great respect between the schools, there was not normally an adversarial relationship between jurists of different schools.  When conflicting opinions arise they are both legitimate and either opinion can be followed.  It is up to the judge to chose which opinion.  
	In the most prominent school, the Hanafis school, the founder, Abu Hanifa (d. 750) and his disciples, Abu Yusuf (d. 798) and al-Shaibani (d. 805) were all attributed with conflicting, but still valid, opinions that had their own followers.  For example: “On the question of whether it is permissible for two non-Muslims to witness a marriage between a Muslim man and a non-Muslim woman, the jurist Quduri (d. 1037) writes: ‘According to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, it is permissible; but Muhammad (al-Shaibani) said that it is not permissible.”
	Emanating from such a prestigious position, the scholars held a vast amount of power in society.  
The Sultan’s Role Regarding the Law
	The traditions of the Sacred Law do not recognize legislation or the power to legislate in the head of the State, because God, through Mohammed, legislated for all.  However, in the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan did take the role of administrator of the law.  The Muslim culture and the Ottoman Empire recognized the Sultan as “supreme in all the great institutions of the Ottoman Empire” and he was regarded as such because the Empire was “thought of, not as built upwards from a basis in the popular will, but as extended downward from the divinely-appointed sovereign at the top”.  So as the divinely appointed sovereign, he could rule and influence every area of the Empire.  His influence became particularly important in administering the rigid law to then modern problems.
	The Sultan’s influence became particularly important in administering the Sacred Law.  Due to its rigidity, judges and jurists struggled to provide flexibility while interpreting and applying the law.  They were often unable to create provisions or flexibility where they believed change in a certain law was required.  When this occurred, it then became necessary for the Sultan and Princes to complement Sheri law with Kanuns, or decrees.  For guidance when writing decrees, the Sultan looked to a document written by jurists.  They categorized the different laws in order of their numerous degrees of obligation for which the Sultan or Prince had to abide by.  The degrees ranged from forbidden, to advised against, to indifference, recommended and finally, rigidly prescribed.  Those forbidden or rigidly prescribed meant that the decreeing Sultan must not make a decree in this area or about this law.  
	Along with the area of law where there was indifference whether a decree was made or not, there was a large realm of matters and issues that Sacred Law did not address at all and therefore could be addressed by decree.  This area of law mainly regarded feudal law, millet law and the law of celebrations.  The areas that the jurists deemed “indifferent” to decree were matters of “military, financial, criminal and police law.  Within each area, there may be narrower categories that were strictly forbidden or off limits to a Sultan’s decree, but for the most part, a Sultan could supplement the topic or decree new administrative or procedural requirements.
	Once a decree was made, the Judges administered it and if need be, the military as well.  A decree was subordinate only to Sacred Law.  
	On the whole, the Kanuns were issued separately to remedy a certain issue at hand.  The decrees were collected and categorized according to the department of government that it effected and by the Sultan who created it.  Each Kanuns portrays the Sultan’s different style of leadership and rule.  Comparisons “in magnitude, scope, character of the contents, authorized unification or prevailing authority” of the Sultan who created it cannot easily be made.  For example, Mehmed II Kanuns were not pre-conceived, unified book of decrees, it consisted of decrees that were made at different times to remedy a present problem and some were decrees of his father and grandfather’s that he had made his own.  The decrees themselves are not long or overly verbose.  There are only three sections, the first having to do with the ranking of officials, the second with “a miscellaneous lot of usages” and the last with the fines for egregious offenses, but it also includes the salaries of his officials.
	Mehmed II, on the whole, adopted the taxation system of the Byzantine Empire, taxing land and people.  As lands and societies were conquered, more decrees were expressed taxing the goods and produce coming from the land.  As an example, the tax on a farm land might be a tenth of the yield that season.
	In regard to the Sacred Law itself, after Mehmed II conquered Constantinople, he ordered that a new code of Sacred Law be prepared because six centuries had passed since Abu Hanifa first formulated it.  This meant that there had been six centuries of new decisions and interpretations by jurists throughout Islamic communities.  As an example of how Mehmed II integrated individuals from every religion and minority into his institutions, he chose Khosrew Pasha, a Christian, to carry out this daunting task.
	Nearly two hundred years later, when Suleiman came into power, it was necessary to further develop the laws to maintain order throughout the much larger Empire.  The Empire had grown to encapsulate many more territories where the majority of the people were Muslim: Damascus, Bagdad and Cairo.  Before his rule, the feudal system, which was similar to a taxation and land tenure system, was in disarray with much revenue simply not being collected, criminal laws needed supplementing since a growing number of problems were not addressed at all by Sacred Law or previous Kanuns.  In the newer territories, such as Egypt, as opposed to Istanbul, the markets and the gild regulations were practically not administered or enforced.  Most of these laws pertained to “land tenure and taxes of the subject Christians”.  For these issues and many more, Suleiman published entire books of legislation, and by 1532 had created his whole new body of law.  
	While he revised many Kanuns from Sultan’s before him, his Kanuns required supplementing soon after as well.  Despite his large body of legislation, his laws, like most of the Sultan’s laws, were encumbered by the conservatism of the Muslim religion and by Sheri Law.  The Muslim public and Muslim Institutions’ adamantly abided by the “old ways” of the laws and these were untouchable by decree.  Another reason why Suleiman’s Kanuns needed supplementing or revising within a short period of time after his death is the vast area of the Empire.  The large distances between himself and the outer-reaches of his Empire, made “true adaptation to circumstance and complete enforcement impossible of attainment”.  Especially in regard to collecting taxes and the taxation system, corruption of officials and bribery began to run rampant due to problems of enforcement over the broad territories.
	In addition to his own Kanuns, Suleiman ordered “a new code of law” (the Sacred Law, not the Kanuns) to be “better adapted to the more widely Muslim character which the empire has assumed.”  This new code was called the Multek ol-ebhar or the “Confluences of the Seas”.  It was finished in 1549 and became the foundation of Ottoman law until the nineteenth century.  
	Despite the corruption, Suleiman was a devout Muslim and history has portrayed him as a legislating with fairness.  For example, his decrees regulating taxes and land tenancy are viewed as an attempt to garner enough revenue to support the Empire, but not burden or take amounts of money that would be considered unfair and disrupt the peace.  In his market regulations decrees he attempted to stop extortion that began to occur rampantly and created many police regulations to “maintain justice, fairness and order.” 
Legal Institutions
	The law in the Ottoman Empire was protected and expressed by colleges, which were regarded equally as places of intellectual and spiritual growth.  In contrast to the Sultan’s role in protecting the Sacred Law, the colleges preserved legal traditions, rather than supplemented the law in order to make it applicable and fair for their modern needs.
 	The colleges in the Empire were attached to mosques and were funded by a trust.  There were colleges throughout the Empire, dedicated to teaching law and other sciences.  In addition, professors wrote manuals on the law that would preserve legal traditions and be used as textbooks.  
	The college system was normally funded by the sultan’s endowment, and later was additionally funded by many wealthy citizens endowments.  Together  which helped the system spread throughout the empire.  Each college was an autonomous institution, with their own individual endowment, trustees and management.  The professors teaching at the colleges were paid salaries, and for the most part, the hierarchy of the colleges depended on the amount of the salaries, with the top schools paying the highest salaries.
Judges
	Judges ensured that the daily lives in the Ottoman Empire ran smoothly.  There were no lawyers in the empire, so any person, no matter their ethnicity or religion, could have access to the judge or the judge’s deputy at any hour of the day.  The judges, called kadi, were “local” judges; while the Ottoman officials had their own military judges called askeri.  The judges were competent to hear all kinds of cases, from civil to criminal, Sheri law to the Kanuns.  The judges also had considerable room to apply their own sense of justice and equity, while of course staying in line with the principles of the Sacred Law. 
	Since the printing press did not enter into use widely in the Ottoman Empire until the eighteenth century, the judges did not have a system of precedent among one another (this does not apply to following earlier legal scholars or Muftis), it did not resemble the system of following precedent that many Western or Anglo-Saxon systems follow.  The judges relied upon their own knowledge of the laws and the customs, the legal books they owned, the local Mufti (if there even was one) and their own sense of fairness.  
	The judges dealt with all matters and even acted as a notary of sorts.  Here are some examples taken from two days of the register of the court in Ankara during January of 1853: 
“A man demands the return of goods given as a pledge.  Another seeks compensation from a man who has killed his packhorse.  The manager of a trust demands ten gold coins owing to him.  The Judge records that a village has paid 340 akches in lieu of barley to the agent who had come to collect barley for the sultan’s camels.  A man records that he is no longer marrying his fiancé and that the parties had returned all goods exchanged for prenuptial arrangements.  A man stands surety for another in a transaction concerning a horse.  Claiming that her husband divorced her, a woman demands that he pay her dower and also maintenance due for the period during which she may not legally remarry.  A villager complains about another who plays a musical instrument.”  
	The Judge would hold proceedings and meetings at his house, where his deputy and clerks were also always present.  In case the Judge was not present, the deputy could proceed without the Judge if necessary.  The clerk’s duty was to take and maintain the records as well as investigate any matter the Judge desired.  In addition, there were ‘permanent witnesses’ whose role was to act as a cooperative memory of the court and the proceedings.  They were supposed to be individuals familiar with the region and it’s people’s customs.  The permanent witnesses could also find out if a document or statement was legitimate and speak to the integrity and decisions of the Judge.  Because there were no trained and knowledgeable lawyers and only their subordinates surrounded the judges, there were many opportunities for corruption.  The application of the law depended greatly on the honesty and veracity of the judges. 

	The Judges normally heard from the parties to a case, and then made a decision immediately and without much verbiage or writing as to his reasoning or logic, unlike American judges.  The judges’ rulings were normally obeyed because it was believed that they “represented Mohammed and wore the robe of God”. 
	 Along with judicial duties and decisions, the Judges were all around administrators of the Sultans.  They were to obey every decree and order from the Sultan, which would range from organizing all the food and fighting supplies for the army as they came through the Judge’s region, hiring oarsmen for the imperial fleet, supervise the sale of animals which would then be brought to the capital or to the Sultan, find and dispatch messengers for passing on the Sultan’s decrees and messages, assign butchers, cooks, saddlers, cobblers and other such tradesman to the army.  The Judge embodied all aspects of the government in their region to maintain the sultan’s power and influence.  
Imperial Council
	The Imperial Council assisted the Sultan in making administrative and policy decisions, and often they would assist or give guidance related to the military or war.  The viziers gave military and political guidance, the military judges were the head judges of the Empire and responsible for judicial issues, there were also treasurers and a chancellor, who wrote the Sultan’s crest or name on documents to prove their authenticity.  For purposes of this paper, I will only discuss the aspects of the Council having to do with the implementation and interpretation of the law. 
	The military judges were all located in Constantinople and held court in the sultan’s palace two days a week, and the rest of the days, at their own homes.  The military judges were part of the Imperial Council, which was the Sultan’s council and the highest level of the government.  As members of the Council, they held the highest positions representing the learned, legal men.  In this community, they were subordinate only to the chief mufti.  
	On the Council, they were responsible for submitting letters and petitions requesting different remedies from other office holders throughout the legal system.  As an example, “the Sultan – or rather the Imperial Council acting in the Sultan’s name – issued a command to the Judge of Bursa to investigate and report on a complaint by the Armenian community against an individual who had been ‘causing trouble’ against two churches.”  The Sultan’s Council made the official request, but the draft of the decree was written and submitted by the Military Judge of Anatolia.  
	Another such decree from 1560 states that the “Military Jude of Anatolia submitted [the letter], and the decree is registered incorporating his words”, and his decree was a response to the Judge of Beypazar, ordering the execution of a man for raping boys and the execution of his accomplices if they should do so again.  
	In addition to serving the Sultan on his Imperial Council, the military judges were responsible for hearing any case involving a subject who received a salary from the Sultan or was part of the military.  When such a case arose, the local authorities, normally the local judge, would forward the case to the Military Judge.  Most often, the Military Judge would make a decision from Constantinople and then send back his decision for implementation by the local authorities.  The Military Judge ordered the Sanjak Governor of Bursa to torture a military personnel in Bergama because he was believed to have murdered the warden of the Bergama castle.   As another example, the same Military Judge ordered to Governor and the Judge of Vidin to further investigate of a cavalryman who was suspected of killing one of his peers.  The local authorities made their investigation, reported it back to the Military Judge and the Military Judge then made his final decision in the case, which the local authorities, again carried out.
The Muftis
	The Muftis were part of the Ulema, the body of learned men, who had finished a law course and had been jurists.  The Muftis were held in high regard and esteem and counseled the Judges.  The only records of mufti’s work and duties are present in the capital cities; however, there is some evidence that larger regions or cities with colleges had muftis.  
	When a Judge was deciding a case that required a deep and learned knowledge of the nuances of Sacred Law, they would submit the legal question, posed as a hypothetical, to the Mufti.   The Mufti, “after careful consideration of the question” would write his answer, normally called a fatwa in an “extremely concise manner, unaccompanied by reasoning” that was “prepared and sealed in solemn form.”  The Judge would almost always adopt these concise answers.  The Muftis were also consulted by citizens for their opinions on the law.  If the Mufti gave a citizen a response to their legal question, it would ordinarily settle the case out of court.    
	In every city besides Constantinople, the Mufti held a position directly under the Judge; however, in Constantinople, the Mufti held a much more powerful position than any Judges in the city.  The Sultan appointed his Mufti and regularly referred to him for guidance regarding questions of the “highest public importance.”  The Sultan would consult him regarding Kanuns and whether war should be waged against a given territory and peoples.    
	While there was no real authority embodied in the position, like that of a Judge, during Suleiman’s rule it was described by visiting Venetians that the Sultan “shows his [Mufti} the greatest reverence of any man in his realm because he represents justice and the image of God.  His position can be thought of as part head of the Church, because the respect he garnered, part United Supreme Court Justice in the way he would defend the Sacred Law, and part wise man, in that he really had no power to create laws or impart his wisdom unless first asked.  Due to their responsibility to give opinions and impart knowledge to the Sultans, judges as well as the common non-Muslim citizen,  he “Muftis played a vital part in adapting the inherited norms of Islamic law and religion to the problems of contemporary society.” 
	The prestige and respect of the Mufti’s were often utilized by the Sultan to garner support from the people as well:
“In the matters of the State the Sultan demands his opinion, whether it be in Condemnation of any great man to Death, or in making War or Peace, or other important Affairs of the Empire; either to appear the more just and religious or to incline the people more willingly to Obedience.”  
	The fatwa’s of the Muftis could also be thought of as decisions, or a body of legislation in their own right; however, unlike the Judges decisions or the Sultan’s Kanuns there was no legal enforcement mechanism aside from the reverence and respect afforded the Mufti.  While the Sultan was regarded as the immediate protector of the Sacred Law, the Mufti, as a position, were protectors of the Sacred Law against progress and reform throughout the ages, a similar type of protection that the jurists believed was a part of their duty and role.  They protected God’s words as laws and traditions that were to influence all aspects of life.