Governing property, making the modern state - PSI424

al-muqasama. Al-Ramli judges that the
people of the village have the right to expel
the cultivator.
94 Ibid. p. 96.
95 Ebussuud judges that the land of
Şam was haraciye, see el-Üskübî, Zahir
ül-Kudat, in Akgündüz: Kanunnameler,
vol. 9, p. 432, mesele 256.
96 The kanun is formal on the question;
see Milli Tetebbular Mecmuası i/2
(1903), p. 305: ‘ama … evkaf reayasında
bu kanun icra olunmaz’.
97 Al-Ramli cites in justification the
two compendia of Ibn Nujaim and his
brother, al-Bahr al-ra’iq and al-Nahr
al-ra’iq: Al-Fatawa al-khairiya, vol. 1,
pp. 99–100. Both Johansen: The Islamic
Law and Cuno: ‘Was the land of Syria miri
or mulk?’ interpret the doctrinal choices of
the Syrian ulema as representing regional
landed interests against the officials of
the central state. This example would not
support such an interpretation: at issue is
an attempt by both the mutawalli of the
waqf and the sibahi of the state to return
cultivators to their plots.
98 Al-Faradi’s epistle is ZAL.6879, fols
1–56a; al-Nabulusi’s epistle is in Majmu‘
mushtamil ‘ala 41 risala, SK.Çelebi Abdullah
Efendi 385/33, Risalat takhyir al-‘ibad
fi sukna al-bilad, fols 264b–270 and
ZAL.4008, fols 42–4. It has been published
and translated by Aladdin, ‘Deux fatwas
du Šayh ‘Abd al-Ġanī al-Nābulusī’, Bulletin
d’Etudes Orientales xxxix–xl (1987–88),
pp. 7–37.
99 ZAL.6879, fol. 5a: ‘wa-mithlu-hu
fi Abi ’l-Su‘ud rahima-hu al-malik alma‘bud’.
100 Ibid., fol. 5b, refers to what are
known today as maqasid al-qur’an: hifz
al-anfus wa-’l-ansab fa-’l-a‘rad fa-’l-‘uqul
fa-’l-amwal.
101 Ibid. fol. 13a.
102 Ibid. fols 13b–17b.
103 Ibid. fols 17b–20b.
104 Ibid. fols 20b–21b.
105 Ibid. fols 23a–34b.
106 Ibid. fols 34b–35a.
251
107 Ibid. fols 35a–40a.
108 Ibid. fols 40a–56a.
109 Rafeq ‘The Syrian ‘ulama’’,
p. 24, judges that the reference is to the
‘Damascene Shafi‘i Mufti Taqy al-Dīn
al-Husni’ 1053–1129/1643–1717. The reference
in al-Farazi, al-Nabulusi and Hamid
al-‘Imadi (see Mughni al-mustafti ‘an su’al
al-mufti, ZAL.5655, fol. 329a where the
name is given as al-Taqi al-Husni) may be
to Taqi ’l-Din Abu Bakr b. Muhammad
b. ‘Abd al-Mu’min al-Husni al-Husaini
al-Shafi‘i al-Dimashqi (752–829AH/1351–
1426). In Kitab Qam‘ al-nufus wa-ruqyat
al-manus, SK.Bagdatlı Vehbi Efendi 649,
fols 71b–82b, al-Husni condemns the
godlessness (kufr) of rulers and of those
jurists who justify extortionate taxation
and appropriation of land. Al-Husni’s
Kitab Qam‘ al-nufus belongs to a genre
of oppositional mirror-for-princes tracts;
in his great legal work Sharh al-tanbih,
SK.Ayasofya 1213, vol. 5, fol. 22a he argues
that rulers and judges may themselves be
bugha, i.e. in opposition to the true imam,
and hence to be disobeyed. The vagueness
of the references by al-Faradi, al-Nabulusi
and Hamid al-‘Imadi make it impossible to
judge whether the earlier or later al-Husni
is at issue; in any case, there is manifestly a
long tradition of Shafi‘i condemnation.
110 Risalat takhyir, SK.Çelebi Abdullah
Efendi 385/33, fol. 267a.
111 Ibid. fol. 267a: ‘li-anna ’linsan
min tab‘i-hi mahabbat watani-hi
wa-’l-hanin ilay-hi wa-’l-farah bi-hi
wa-’l-tashawwuq ila ru’yati-hi wa-’l-tarab
bi-madhi-hi wa-’l-thana ‘alay-hi wa dhikr
ma fi-hi min al-mahasin wa li-hadha warad
fi ’l-athr hubb al-watan min al-iman’.
112 Ibid. fol. 267a.
113 Majmu‘ mushtamil ‘ala 41 risala,
SK, Çelebi Abdullah Efendi 385/9, Risala
fi jawab su’al warad ‘alay-na min al-Quds
al-sharif , fols 67a–71b. In his condemnation
al-Nabulusi draws a parallel (nazir)
between the exceptional taxes, listed in
registers and kanuns, which dhimmis
pay out of fear of Muslims, and unjust
Notes to chapter 3