TURKOMANS BETWEEN TWO EMPIRES: THE ... - Bilkent University

As Đnalcık formulized long ago, the timar regime of the Ottomans is based, first
of all, on peasant family units (çift-hane system). 309 A family unit, in this system, was
simply an agricultural producer totally dismantled of political and military content. More
important perhaps is that they were placed in a situation in which they could never come
together to form a political or military unit. Rather the political and military functions in
the rural area were wholly designed to be held by sipāhis, who were simply appointed
servitors of the sultan. As a famous maxim frequented in the Ottoman law codes,
“re’āya ibn-i re’āya”, suggests, even the doors for a peasant-subject to become a state
servitor, or a member of the ruling class (askerī) are almost completely closed. In the
Ottoman regime, the ideal re’āya was obedient to the ruling class (ulū’l-emr), totally
apolitical, never regarding himself in a position to interfere in politics, was totally
subjugated to the established socio-political order and never thinking of changing his
status. 310 The class of ‘ideal subjects’, which constituted the principal producer class of
the empire, were under cautious protection of the sultan himself. 311 Comment should be
made here of the frequent articles in the Ottoman law codes insistently ordering to
protect the rights of subjects against usurpations of askerīs. 312
309
For çift-hane system, see Halil Đnalcık, "Osmanlılar’da Raiyyet Rüsûmu", Belleten, 23, 1959, 575-610.
310
See Ocak, Zındıklar ve Mülhidler, p. 92.
311
The protection of small farmers, or peasants, had always been foremost concern of the Sultan since
they constituted the principal producer class, thus, the principal source of revenue for the treasury. See, for
example, Đnalcık, “Comments on ‘Sultanism’”, pp. 62-3.
312
Ottoman sultans used to promulgate frequent firmans, which might also be regarded as law code, called
adāletnāme to protect against the usurpation of ruling class, i. e. askerīs. In these imperial edicts the
agents of the sultan in provincial offices were strictly banned any practice outside the kānun, or law,
which was deemed as oppression (zulm). (For a detailed analysis of adāletnāmes, see Halil Đnalcık,
“Adâletnâmeler”, Türk Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi, 11, 1965, 49-145. Also consider Halil Đnalcık, “Şikâyet
Hakkı: ‘Arz-i Hâl ve ‘Arz-i Mahzar’lar”, in his Osmanlı’da Devlet, Hukuk, Adâlet, Đstanbul: Eren
Yayınları, 2000, 49-71.) This was stemmed from the notion of ‘adālet, justice, a key principle constituted
the kernel of pre-Islamic Persian or Middle Eastern political systems, which was later developed by
Muslim bureaucrats as well. See Halil Đnalcık, “State, Sovereignty and Law during the Reign of
Süleymân”, pp. 70-78.
116