Marife Dini Araştırmalar Dergisi

Öz

Ottoman legal thought was shaped largely by the synthesis of Ḥanafī jurisprudence and the legal legacy inherited from earlier Turkic-Islamic states. In the early 16th century, parallel to the expansion of Ottoman territories, several institutional legal reforms were introduced. One such reform required judges (qāḍīs) to issue rulings based on the most authoritative opinions within the Ḥanafī school, with the aim of establishing legal uniformity across the empire. This policy gradually influenced both the methods of legal instruction and the structure of juristic authorship. Within this context, Tarjīḥ al-bayyināt, a work authored by Vankulu Meḥmed Efendi (d. 1000/1592) in the early 16th century, laid the foundation for a distinct genre that would be further developed in subsequent centuries under similar titles and formats. These works remained among the primary reference sources for Ottoman qāḍīs, offering systematic guidance on how to adjudicate cases involving multiple valid evidentiary claims (bayyināt), in accordance with the most reliable Ḥanafī opinions. In doing so, the Tarjīḥ al-bayyināt literature synthesized scattered procedural principles found in classical fiqh texts and presented them in a coherent analytical framework, thus making a unique contribution to Islamic legal thought. Emerging within the Ottoman domain from the 16th century onward, this literature reflects the dynamic and reform-responsive character of both Ḥanafī jurisprudence and the Ottoman legal order. Nevertheless, a substantial portion of this rich corpus remains in manuscript form, preserved in libraries yet awaiting comprehensive scholarly engagement.
Although existing studies have shed light on the Tarjīḥ al-bayyināt tradition, they often fail to examine it within a holistic framework that considers its historical and socio-legal background, reasons for its emergence, its role within the Ḥanafī madhhab, and its influence on later juristic and judicial literature. This study aims to address this gap by analyzing the historical origins and methodological development of the Tarjīḥ al-bayyināt literature, while also assessing its place within Ḥanafī legal theory and its impact on Ottoman judicial practice. This study seeks to address the following central question: "What was the role of the Tarjīḥ al-bayyināt literature within the framework of the legalisation process of fiqh in the Ottoman Empire, and how should its significance be evaluated from the perspective of Ḥanafī fiqh? What social, political, and legal developments paved the way for this process? What factors contributed to the continuous development of this literature up until the late Ottoman period?" To answer this question, the study adopts a qualitative content analysis approach, combining both historical and conceptual dimensions. The primary sources of the research consist of unpublished or manuscript copies of Tarjīḥ al-bayyināt works, alongside relevant academic literature that explores the intersection of Ḥanafī jurisprudence and the Ottoman legal system.
In the broader context of Ottoman-Hanafī procedural development, the literatures of adab al-qāḍī, rasm al-muftī, and finally tarjīḥ al-bayyināt represent successive stages of juristic formation. Adab al-qāḍī initially outlined the ethical responsibilities of judges, but over time evolved into a more institutionalized discipline detailing the rules, authorities, and structures of Islamic court procedures. Rasm al-muftī literature, while originally addressing muftīs, came to serve as a guide for judges engaged in ijtihād-based rulings. Tarjīḥ al-bayyināt, representing the most technical and narrow field among these, systematizes the decision-making process in cases of conflicting or equally weighted evidences. In Ottoman practice, judges typically began with furūʿ works (classical fiqh and fatwā texts) to resolve cases. If a solution could not be found there, they would turn to principles derived from uṣūl al-fiqh and qawāʿid fiqhiyyah. However, in situations involving evidentiary conflict, such as contradictions in witness testimony or equal-weighted bayyināt, these sources proved insufficient. At such points, the Tarjīḥ al-bayyināt literature functioned as a specialized resource offering procedural clarity and technical legal tools. In conclusion, the Tarjīḥ al-bayyināt literature is not merely a genre within Islamic legal writing but constitutes a well-institutionalized juristic framework that encapsulates legal stability, procedural rigor, and scholarly depth. It stands as a unique contribution of the Ottoman-Hanafī legal tradition and remains a largely unexplored yet significant domain within Islamic jurisprudence.