Laws of Yesterday’s Wars Symposium – Ottoman Laws of War
Editor’s note: The following post highlights a chapter that appears in Samuel White’s third edited volume of Laws of Yesterday’s Wars published with Brill. For a general introduction to the series, see Dr Samuel White and Professor Sean Watts’s introductory post.
The Ottoman Empire was one of the largest and longest-lasting empires in history. The Empire was established with divine sovereignty as its ideological foundation, while also recognising that without the sultan’s administrative power, Islamic law (shari’a) could not be adequately embodied.
The sultan promulgated kanun, a secular legal system based on customary law (örf), and eventually took its place alongside the shari’a. The literature on shari’a-kanun legal discourse is divided on the topic of whether kanun, in practice, was supplementary to the shari’a or whether it superseded it as Ottoman-enacted regulations were occasionally in clear contradiction with the shari’a. Dueling conceptions of the devşirme system illustrate well this divide.
To analyse the relationship between the two sources of Ottoman law, this post examines Ottoman laws of war and their adherence to the shari’a during the Golden Age of the empire from 1452-1566 AD.
The Ottoman World Order
As the longest-ruling Islamic dynasty, it is important to understand how the Ottomans governed the vast territories that made up the empire. The concept of “world order” (nizam-i ‘âlem) was the underlying principle guiding Ottoman political and social order. The duty of ensuring and maintaining nizam-i ‘âlem was entrusted to the sultan as “God’s shadow on earth.” The concept of a State governed by a ruler with divine appointment provided legitimacy which protected the empire from internal and external threat. This concept of divine authority also underpinned the relationship between the governing body and the civilian population.
The Circle of Justice theory reflects the interdependence between the rulers and ruled, and the ultimate reliance upon the shari’a as the basis for nizam-i ‘âlem. Each variable of the circle cannot function without the success of the others; the failure of one breaks the circle which threatens State power and security. The Ottomans adopted this political concept to reconcile the imperative of upholding justice as embodied in the shari’a with political expediency.
Another aspect of the Ottoman world order involved ruling according to ancient custom (‘adet-i qadime). To maintain lasting peaceful relations with non-Muslim tributaries, the Ottomans adhered to the customary practices and traditions of their predecessors. The ancient custom used by the Ottomans was a derivative of inherited structures originating from the Bedouins, Byzantines, and previous Turco-Muslim States.
Nature of Wars: An Aggressive Gaza and Justified Jihad
Medieval Europe’s image of the Ottoman Empire was dominated by the so-called “Türkenfurcht” or “the fear of Turks.” Soon after, the Orientalist notion of the “Terrible Turk” grew popular in historical literature, portraying the Ottoman Empire as a brooding non-Western despotic State. Both served to depict the Ottomans as lawless brutes, forming a discourse on the way in which the Ottoman Empire was discussed. In rejecting the Orientalist view, this post demonstrates the Ottomans’ adherence of Islamic laws for the purposes of administering justice, especially while at war.
The Ottomans categorised their concepts of war into wars on imperial campaigns (jihad) and frontier warfare (gaza). They adopted the ideology of jihad to justify their rule and wage war for the purposes of territorial expansion. During the 15th and 16th centuries, the Ottomans engaged in a perpetual war of raids against neighbouring European States. The dichotomy of a defensive jihad and an offensive gaza is contested as not having justification under Islamic law. The Ottomans’ perpetual state of war is attributable to the historical circumstances of medieval age, which saw relentless invasions between States for dominance. Assessing the role the sultan played as the embodiment of justice and how this position was used to repulse attacks against Islamic territories, reveals the Islamic principles applied by the Ottomans to legitimise this recourse to war.
Sultan Mehmed II established the character and nature of the Ottoman warfare based on the military objective of establishing a universal empire. The concept of one ruler with absolute sovereignty was of central importance to the Ottomans’ recourse to armed conflict. Ottoman historian, Halil Inalcik, observes that the means of attaining absolute power was through the establishment of justice and that it was justice that 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 which was founded on both shari’a and örf. The objective of spreading Islamic hegemony and the Mongol-Genghisid notion of a monistic caliphate corresponded respectively.
Prohibitions and Punishments
Ottoman sultans regularly issued kanunname to supplement Islamic law regarding implementing punishment for “war crimes.” The Ottoman criminal justice policy and practice functioned in a fairly consistent manner throughout the 15th and 16th centuries, whereby the shari’a and kanun were closely integrated and mutually legitimated. The kanuname were developed to sanction the discretionary punishments of those found to have breached the laws of war.
Prohibited acts during war consisted of acts against the sultan or the State. Such crimes included: rebellion against the sultan; the possession of weaponry by civilians; export of arms to enemy States; taking spoils of war without the authorisation of the sultan; the enslavement and plunder of protected peoples; and taking up arms against fellow Muslims.
Under Ottoman law, violations of the rules of armed conflict warranted corporal punishment or banishment. Such punishments were in accordance with the Qur’anic verse permitting the execution or exile of a person who “spread corruption” or was a “threat to social order.” These discretionary punishments could only be imposed once the Islamic requirements for a trial had been met. However, during military campaigns, high-ranking military officials were authorised by military custom to impose punishments without a trial against rebels for violating the laws of armed conflict.
Exceptions to the Rule
Defences to violations of prohibited acts are also noteworthy. The Islamic jus in bello discussed under “Prohibitions & Restrictions” can be deliberated in the context of assumed contraventions of the shari’a. The justification and permissibility of these restrictions are immersed in the context of exceptional circumstances and overruling shari’a precepts.
For instance, the prohibition of waging war within dar al-Islam did not apply in the context of the Ottoman-Safavid wars as the recourse to armed conflict was legitimised by the defence of Islamic orthodoxy, and thus, within the parameters of lawful warfare.
The devşirme system involved the controversial practice of enslavement during armed conflict. The practice was controversial for its unlawfulness as it was prohibited under Islamic law to enslave those with protected dhimmi status. Regarding defences as exceptions to the Islamic jus in bello, the Ottomans’ practice of slavery during war is the only exception without a defence as it is a blatant contravention with absolutely no legal justification. This contravention of the shari’a was overlooked in favour of serving the needs of the State and the formation of the Ottoman world order.
Conclusion
The legal traditions of the Ottoman Empire which can be observed during the Golden Age demonstrate strong adherence to Islamic law. Ottoman secularisation that developed in later years was a by-product of a modernisation process which was accepted as a necessary means to compete with the West.
The idea of protecting itself from Western powers by adopting modern institutions led to the Ottoman decline and eventual collapse. The absence of morality in warfare regulation will lead to the downfall of a once-mighty military, such as the Ottoman Empire’s. An analysis of the Ottoman military’s adherence to the shari’a during the Golden Age demonstrates the causal links between strict adherence to law and morality with a strong military force. I argue that the kanun was implemented and employed vis-à-vis the shari’a and that the efficiency of Ottoman warfare during this period depended on the adherence to shari’a as the basis for regulating the laws of war.
***
Photo credit: Turkish Government via Wikimedia Commons
