Words are Magic: Orality in Ottoman society

and jurisprudential tradition

Eugenia Kermeli-Ünal

Ayşegül Keskin Çolak’a Armağan

Tarih ve Edebiyat Yazıları
sayfa: 53- 61’den ayrıbasım
 Words are Magic:
Orality in Ottoman society and
jurisprudential tradition *

Eugenia KERMELİ-ÜNAL **

On September 27, 1592, Hatice Hatun initiated a litigation against a certain

Dervish son of Mustafa, accusing him of calling her a whore and a harlot (bana
fâhişe ve kahbe dedi). Presumably, it was not the first time that accusations of this
nature echoed in the courtroom of Üsküdar, although one would have expected
this type of dispute to be solved by an out-of-court settlement. What compli-
cated the case, though, was the inability of Hatice to prove her claim. Subse-
quently, the judge inquired about the character of Dervish to decide whether
the accusation would have been plausible. Unfortunately for Hatice, a good
number of upfront members of the community came forth and testified that
the accused was a righteous and honest individual. 1 Cases, like this one, are
abundant in the records of the Ottoman courts raising a number of interesting
questions with regard to social and legal interactions. One cannot but wonder
about the reasons, pushing Hatice to file for a case in court, without previously
guarantying the soundness of her evidence. Is the pronunciation of certain
words action enough to bring forth finality? We know from Islamic jurispru-
dence that the answer is certainly positive with regard to oaths and divorce
formulas. Jurists repeatedly warn Muslims that even the accidental pronounce-
ment of the divorce formula provokes its finality. To understand societal be-
havior, it is imperative therefore to look into juridical orality to detect the cir-
cumstances and instances, where verbal utterances have immediate effect upon
the speaker. In this paper, I will not delve on oaths and divorce formulas, both
obvious examples of the magical power of words. I will concentrate instead on
verbal abuse against a person and his or her beliefs.
In the 1980s, Walter Ong based on anthropological studies discussed, in his
book on orality and literacy, —what he called— the physiodynamics of orality. 2
For Ong “the fact that oral peoples commonly and in all likelihood universally

* I only wish words were indeed magic and Ayşegül would reside back in the world of living.

I will never forget your smile, the first day I saw you in the classroom; when I signed as
witness your marriage certificate. I miss you terribly.
** Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
1 İstanbul kadı sicilleri: Üsküdar mahkemesi, 84 numaralı sicil, H.999-1000/M. 1590-91, (İstanbul:

İSAM yay., 2010), 87.

2 Walter Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (London; New York:

Routledge 2002), 32.

53
Eugenia KERMELİ-ÜNAL

consider words to have magical potency is clearly tied in, at least unconsciously,
with their sense of the word as necessarily spoken, sounded, and hence power-
driven.” 3 In the case of Islamic societies —in particular— scholars like Souaiaia
argued that the nature of Islam endorsed orality. 4 In fact, the name of the Holy
book of Muslims, the Quran, and meaning “recitation” is an indication of the
importance of orality. 5 Even after the establishment of legal schools, the trans-
formed legal tradition, “while aspiring to keep the connection between the past
(Qur’ân and Sunnah) and present (ijtihâdic opinions), has remained dependent on
orality.” 6
This does not however suspend the value of the written word. The verses
2:282-283, for example, are a lengthy testimony on the recording (kataba) of
debts and other transactions. 7 Thus, the symbiosis between the oral and written
continued for some time. It was towards the end of the second century H. (the
beginning of the ninth century AD) though when oral testimony became the
“linchpin” of the system of evidence. 8 From then onwards documents would
be accepted as valid, if they were attested by at least two witnesses. This feature
of the Islamic law of procedure would be followed in the Ottoman jurispruden-
tial and juridical praxis more often than not.
Albeit the importance the written word would eventually acquire in the Ot-
toman polity, orality retained the exalted place it enjoyed in previous Islamic
societies. Almost a decade ago, James Grehan voiced a number of issues with
regard to orality, using oaths as his starting point. 9 Grehan asserted that Otto-
man Damascus functioned “as essentially an oral culture”, whereupon people
relied heavily on verbal agreements. 10 Oaths and vows —an essential part of
pre-Islamic practice— were incorporated in Islamic culture to facilitate interac-
tion within the community. Jurists however objected to their widespread use in
daily life, since like other unilateral statements of will, they may not be with-
drawn. 11 What the common folk failed to understand therefore was that an
oath entails an obligation in the presence of God, and failure to fulfill it or a

3 Ibid., 33.
4 Ahmed E. Souaiaia, The Function of Orality in Islamic Law and Practices: Verbalizing Meaning
(Lewiston, N.Y.: E. Mellen Press, 2006), 37.
5 Alan Jones,. “Orality and Writing in Arabia” Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾân, General Editor:

Jane Dammen McAuliffe, (Georgetown University, Washington DC.: Brill Online, 2016).
6 Souaiaia, The Function of Orality, 13.
7 Muhammad M. Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an (Ankara: AraştırmaYayınları,

2005), 65.
8 Wael B. Hallaq, The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law: Part of Themes in Islamic Law

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 87.

9 James Grehan, “The Mysterious Power of Words: Language, Law, and Culture in Ottoman

Damascus (17th-18th centuries)”, Journal of Social History 37/4, (2004): 991-1015.

10 Ibid., 992.
11 Hülya Canbakal, “Vows as Contract in Ottoman Public Life (17th-18th centuries)”, Islamic

Law and Society 18/1 (2010): 98.

54
 Words are Magic: Orality in Ottoman society and jurisprudential tradition

false oath is a great sin. Thus, for Hanafis an oath is valid, even if it is forcibly
imposed upon an individual. 12
Orality however is not exclusively reserved within the realm of obligations.
In social interactions, speech like other general features of gestation could not
escape a vigilance of behavior, mostly described in adab literature. Mannerism
dictated self-restrain in a society serving exacting formality. Raising one’s voice
was equated to the usage of inappropriate or coarse language, both considered a
trademark of the riffraff. Etiquette thus praised silence, especially when unequal
partners (spouses, children or pupils) engaged in conversation. In such an un-
derstanding students offended their teachers, if they addressed them directly.
Al-Nabulusi also urges them to refrain from broaching learned topics in the
presence of their teacher in case they conveyed a flair of collegiality. 13 Only
poets and members of the ulema, both renowned for their elaborate language
were at liberty to articulate within the scope of accepted “virtuous” orality.
Self-restraint and polite speech might have been the ideal model, life though
could not exclude indulgence in foul-mouth and the use of insults and obsceni-
ties 14. Court records and opinions of jurisconsults are asked to measure up
offence and determine the borders of obscenity, as individuals sought redemp-
tion, every time verbal abuse disturbed well-defined societal borders.
Ottoman legal opinion collections (fetvas) discuss issues of verbal abuse un-
der two generic headings: the chapter on discretional punishment (ta‘zir) and on
blasphemy (kufr).
Question: Zeyd called Amr, a member of the ulema class, “You licorice handler” (bre
meyancı). If Amr is annoyed, what should happen to Zeyd?
Answer: Severe chastisement. 15
In this case the insinuation of intoxication of a member of the ulema class
makes the prescribed punishment imperative. Offending the social standing of
a member of the learned class is punished in a similar manner.
Question: If Zeyd strikes Amr, a member of the ulema class, calling him “a Bastard”
(bre Haramzâde), what should happen to Zeyd?
Answer: Chastisement. 16
Similarly, calling a member of the elite class, a Turk, meaning a nomad was a
serious offense 17. Another form of insult was to call him a “gipsy” 18. In the

12 İbrahim Halebi, Mevkufat İslam Fıkhı: Mülteka tercümesi (Istanbul: Sağlam Yayın Evi, 2007),

vol. 1: 303.
13 Grehan, “The Mysterious Power”, 994.
14 Grehan relates the embarrassment of al-Muhibbi, the biographer of the renowned

grammarian Mahmud al-Mujtahid who spoke only the “purest and most correct Arabic in
which he could sometimes recite dirty jokes, creating a hilarious effect.” Grehan, “The
Mysterious Power”, 1002.
15 Şeyhülislam Yenişehirli Abdullah Efendi, Behcetü’l-Fetâvâ, [hereafter Behcetü’l] eds. S. Kaya

et al., (2011), d. 859, 161.

16 Şeyhülislam Feyzullah Efendi, Fetâvâ-yı Feyziye, [hereafter Feyziye] ed. S. Kaya, (2009), n.

773, 115.
55
Eugenia KERMELİ-ÜNAL

following fetva to add insult to injury, the culprit implied that the financial status
of the offended party was below its family’s social status.
Question: Zeyd in the course of his quarrel with Amr, a member of the nobility
(sâdât-i kirâm), said to the latter “You Turk, I will take [the tax owed by] a landless
lad (bennâk) from your father” (ben senin babandan bennâk alırım, bre Türk). If he
conveyed shame upon Amr, what should happen to Zeyd?
Answer: Severe Chastisement.19
Finally, an insult to a noble man would be to associate him with dishonora-
ble trades, like that of a daily laborer.
Question: Zeyd —in the course of heated argument with the noble Amr— has an
outburst of anger and pulls Amr’s beard, saying to him “You daily laborer” (bre
ırgad). What should happen to Zeyd?
Answer: Chastisement. 20
Other social categories who deserve protection from obscenities and insults
were the pious and the women. Some of the most frequent insults to pious men
were: “berth of thieves”, “effeminate”, “pederast”. Usage of these insults al-
most always resulted to chastisement.
Question: If Zeyd strikes Amr, a pious man (sulehâdan) saying “You effeminate” (bre
muhannes), what should happen to Zeyd?
Answer: Severe chastisement. 21
Insulting women would primarily involve an attack on their chastity. How-
ever such insults would border dangerously to calumny, punishable —if prov-
en— by the death penalty.
Question: Zeyd called the married Hind —in her absence— a whore (rosbî). What
should happen to him?
Answer: The canonical punishment for calumny (hadd-i kazf). 22
To utter the same words under the state of intoxication does not lift the
burden of canonical punishment 23, even if the two sides have reached an ami-
cable agreement.

17As Bernard Lewis said, “in the Imperial society of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was

little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads
or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages.”
Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London; New York: Royal Institute of
International Affairs, Oxford University Press, 1968), 1.
18 Zeyd sâdât-i kirâmdan Amr’a “Bre çingene!” deyu şetmeylese Zeyd’e ne lazım olur? El-Cevab: Ta‘zir.

Feyziye, d. 786, 116.

19 Behcetü’l, d. 858, 161. The same punishment is prescribed if a member of the nobility is

battered. Zeyd sâdât-i kirâmdan Amr’ı bi-gayr-i hakk darbeylese Zeyd’e ne lazım olur? El-Cevab
Ta‘zîr. Feyziye, d. 769, 115.
20 Feyziye, d. 772, 115. Another common insult is related to progeny. Zeyd sâdât-i kirâmdan

Amr’a “Bre it oğlu it” deyu şetmeylese Zeyd’e ne lazım olur? El-cevab: Ta‘zîr. Feyziye, d. 774, 115.
21 Feyziye, d. 775, 115. Zeyd sulehâdan Amr’a “Bre hırsız yatağı” deyu şetmeylese Zeyd’e ne lazım olur?

El-Cevab: Ta‘zîr. Feyziye, n. 776, 115. Zeyd sulehâdan Amr’a “Bre lûtî” deyu şetmeylese Zeyd’e ne
lazım olur? El-Cevab: Ta‘zîr. Feyziye, n. 777, 115.
22 Behcetü’l, d. 853, 160.

56
 Words are Magic: Orality in Ottoman society and jurisprudential tradition

Question: Zeyd called the married Hind “You whore”. Afterwards, upon the re-
quest of Hind, the kadi adjudged to Zeyd the canonical punishment for calumny. Is
this punishment aborted, if Hind receives an amount of money from Zeyd and for-
gives him?
Answer: No, it is not. 24
It is important to note that in the examples given above, personal status is a
yard of measurement in determining punishment. Thus, if a Christian woman is
buttered and verbally abused by another Christian, she can have her transgres-
sor punished.
Question: If the Christian Hind hits the Christian Zeynep, saying [to the latter]
“You adulteress”, what should happen to Hind?
Answer: Severe chastisement. 25
If however a non-Muslim belittles a Muslim and attacks the latter’s societal
status the punishment is impending.
Question: What should happen to non-Muslim Zeyd, if he hits the Muslim Amr
saying to him: “You juvenile, worthless man”?
Answer: Chastisement. 26
Therefore, jurists measured up verbal abuse and prescribed punishment in
accordance to the social status accepted by any given community. It is the same
community that eventually determines whether one of its members is worthy of
protection and it provides personal suretyship (kefîl bin-nefs) or of expulsion.
The personal standing of any member of the community is a parameter when
insult is measured up.
Question: Amr is characterized (by the community) as a cheat and an intriguer. If
Zeyd calls Amr “You cheat, you intriguer”, is chastisement prescribed to Zeyd?
Answer: No, it is not. 27
Whereas the examples we have seen above are mostly related to interper-
sonal conflict and are punishable by the state authority, there are other forms of
orality in fetva collections like offenses both against men and God. In this case,
punishment is dual, in an effort to address both the crime and the sin.
Question: What should happen to the Muslim Zeyd, if he hits his Muslim father us-
ing words of sexual connotation “I have done so and so to your religion and belief,
you unbeliever”?

23 Zeyd tâian şürb-i hamr edip hamrdan sekrân iken Hind-i muhsaneye “Bre rosbî”dese Zeyd’e ne lazım

olur? El-cevab: Hadd-i kazf. Behcetü’l, d.855, 160.

24 Zeyd Hind-i muhsaneye “Bre rosbî” deyip ba‘dehu Hind’in talebiyle kadı Zeyd üzerine hadd-i kazf ile

hükmettikden sonra Hind Zeyd’den şu kadar akçe alıp Zeyd’i afv eylese Zeyd’den hadd-i kazf sâkıt olur
mu? El-Cevab: Olmaz. Behcetü’l, d.856, 160.
25 Hind-i nasraniye Zeyneb-i nasraniyeye “Bre zâniye” deyu şetmeylese Hind’e ne lazım olur? El-Cevab:

Ta‘zîr-i şedid. Behcetü’l, d.865, 161.

26 Zeyd-i zimmî Amr-i müslime “Bre pîrsiz, bre erkânsız” deyu şetmeylese Zeyd’e ne lazım olur? El-

Cevab: Te’dîb. Feyziye, d. 779, 116.

27 Zeyd gamz ve telbîs ile mevsûf olan Amr’a “Bre gammaz, bre telbîs” dese Zeyd’e ta‘zîr lazım olur mu?

El-Cevab:Olmaz. Feyziye, n.779. 116.

57
Eugenia KERMELİ-ÜNAL

Answer: Renewal of faith and marriage and chastisement. His punishment for being
undutiful to his parents, he will receive in the Hereafter. 28
Interestingly enough, Ottoman jurisconsults are innovative in extending
sanctity to their own legal opinions. Thus failure to act upon opinions that are
not legally binding 29 could remove the culprit from the community of believers.
Question: Zeyd showed to his adversary Amr, a noble fetva he took from the şeyhülis-
lâm. What should happen to Amr if he says to Zeyd, —God Forbid! —, “Put the
fetva on my dick”?
Answer: Renewal of faith and marriage. 30
Offending Islamic rituals provokes punishment, even if the offence occurs
under the state of rage or duress. It is during this condition of verbal abuse that
words acquire a magical attribute, since humans are not the only recipients but
mainly God is involved.
Question: Hind who bears the obligation of Hac, went to the Revered Mecca and
performed her sacred duty of pilgrimage. After her return, the Muslim Zeyd had a
quarrel with Hind and told her “What about your pilgrimage! A dog should shit up-
on your pilgrimage”. What should happen to Zeyd?
Answer: Severe chastisement and renewal of faith and marriage. 31
Verbally abusing prophets though invariably leads to capital punishment.
Question: What should happen, according to the Holy Law, to the non-Muslim
Zeyd, who —God Forbid and once more God Forbid— publicly with loathsome
and vile expressions cursed and was blasphemous to the Messenger —Peace be up-
on Him—and this has been canonically proven?
Answer: Indeed the Hanafi imams considered as sufficient, discretional punishment
and extended imprisonment. However some of the subsequent imams have given
the legal opinion that [the curser] should be killed. In addition, all the Shafi‘ and
Maliki imams have followed the doctrine of killing [him]. The illustrious Ebussuud
—may the All-loving God rest his soul— had offered the opinion to kill [him] [and
included it] in the petitioned articles [Ebussuud submitted] to His Excellency the
sultan Suleiman Khan—may his soul rests and God have mercy upon him. At pre-

28 Zeyd-i müslim babası Amr-i müslime ”Bre din ve imanını falan ettiğim kâfir” deyu cima‘ lafzıyla
şetmeylese Zeyd’e ne lazım olur? El-cevab: Tecdîd-i iman ve nikâh lazım olur ve ta‘zîr olunur, ukûkunun
cezasını ahirette görür. Feyziye, n/866, 130.
29 John Esposito (ed), The Islamic World: Past and Present, (Oxford; New York: Oxford

University Press, 2004), Vol. 3, 160.

30 Feyziye, d. 873, 131. Zeyd bir hususda şeyhülislamdan aldığı fetva-yı şer‘iyeyi hasmı Amr’a gösterdik-

de Amr Zeyd’e —haşa— “Fetvayı zekerime geçir” dese Amr’a ne lazım olur? El-cevab: Tecdîd-i iman ve
nikâh. Feyziye, d. 873, 131.
31 Üzerine hac farz olan Hind Kabe-i Mükerreme’ye gidip ıskât-ı fariza-ı hac edip geldikten sonra Zeyd-ı

müslim Hind ile çekişip Hind’e “Senin haccın ne olacakdır, haccına kelb yestehlesün” dese Zeyd’e ne lazım
olur? El-Cevab: Ta‘zîr-i şedîd ve tecdîd-i iman ve nikâh. Behcetü’l, d.1051, 198. Similar in severity
is yet another fetva. Zeyd-i Müslim Mekke-i Mükerreme’ye varan Amr’a “Vardığın Kabe’nin ortasına
yestehliyeyim” dese Zeyd’e ne lazım olur? El-Cevab: Kâfir olur, tecdîd-i iman ve nikâh, tevbe etmezse
katlolunur. Behcetü’l, d.1050, 198.
58
 Words are Magic: Orality in Ottoman society and jurisprudential tradition

sent, it is imperative to petition to the sovereign of the Muslims to slain [the curs-
er]. 32
The legal opinion of Feyzullah Efendi (d.1703) mentioned above discusses
an issue of controversy even today 33. The act of vilification (shatm or sabb)
against the prophet Muhammad and his Companions gradually developed into
an action punishable by death. Islamic jurisprudence eventually categorized
blasphemy committed by a Muslim within the context of apostasy (ridda) and
unbelief (kufr). However, the early works of the founders of the schools of law
do not include this blasphemy in their chapters on apostasy and unbelief. It was
not until the end of the 9th century and the beginning of the 10th century that
jurists finally categorized a blasphemer against any Prophet (not just Muham-
mad) as an apostate. 34 In the Ottoman context the mufti al-Ramli (d. 1596)
asserts that a person insulting the Prophet Muhammad is classified as kâfir. He
fails though to do the same classification for blasphemers against the Compan-
ions, an omission rectified by his 17th-century commentator al-Shabramallisis
(d. 1685) who treated insults against the Companions also as an act of unbe-
lief. 35
Albeit al-Ramli’s qualifications —as the fetva of Feyzullah Efendi notes—
Hanafi jurists had rather diverse opinions on the matter. Early jurists initially
considered severe chastisement and long imprisonment as adequate punish-
ment. Under the pressure by the rest of the schools the Hanafis reconsidered
the penalty and converted it into capital punishment –based though on the
ruler’s discretion rather than Islamic procedural law. This assertion is reinforced
by the mention in Feyzullah’s fetva of the petition of the celebrated mufti
Ebussuud to the sultan Suleiman to punish such blasphemy with capital pun-
ishment. The fact that Feyzullah proposes the repetition of Ebussuud’s sugges-
tion reinforces the assertion that Ottoman Hanafis consider that the punish-
ment of blasphemy lies within the area of ta‘zir. Unlike al-Ramli who catego-
rized blasphemy against the Prophet as an act of kufr, Feyzullah Efendi suggests
that it remains the exclusive right of the ruler 36. One cannot but wonder

32 Zeyd-i zimmî alenen —hâşa sümme hâşa— Rasûl-i Ekrem sallallahu teâla aleyhi ve sellem hazretlerine

tabir ve tasrihi şeni‘ ve müstehcen lafız ile sebb u şetmeylediği şer‘an sabit olsa Zeyd’e şer‘an ne lazım olur?
El-cevab: Gerçi eimme-i hanafiyye ta‘zir ve hab-i medîd ile iktifa eylemişler lakin bazı müteahhîn katline
iftâ eylediğinden ma‘dâ eimme-i şâfiiyye ve mâlikiyye umumen katline zâhib olup Ebussuud aleyhi rahme-
tü’l Vedûd hazretleri katline iftâ edip Sultan Süleyman Han aleyhi’r-rahmetü ve’l-gufran hazretlerine
ma‘rûz olan mevâddandır, hâlen padişah-ı İslama arzolunup katlolunmak gerekdir. Feyziye, d.855,
128.
33 See the controversy on Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic verses.
34 Wiederhold L. “Shatm” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis,

C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. (Brill Online, 2016).

35 Ibid. Sunni jurists formed a consensus with regard to the veneration of the Companions

after the 14th century. As the result of Shi‘i-Sunni hostilities in Egypt and Syria, blasphemy
against the Prophet and his Companions came to be considered as an act of apostasy.
36 In another version, the result is the same. Zeyd-i zimmînin Rasûl-i Ekrem sallallahu teâla aleyhi

ve sellem hazretlerine alenen sebbettiği sabit olsa Zeyd’e ne lazım olur? El-Cevab: Bilâ-tehir mel‘ûn katlo-
lunur. Feyziye, d. 854. 128.
59
Eugenia KERMELİ-ÜNAL

whether procedural concerns on evidence, lie behind the decision to employ

sultanic justice, as it is the swiftest form of punishment.
Finally the act of blasphemy can also occur in the verbal exchanges of two
non-Muslims. In this case the insult against Jesus categorizes the Jew Bekir as
an unbeliever and he is given the death penalty.
Question: What should happen to the Jew Bekir, if he says to the Christian Beşir
“Your prophet Isa (Peace be upon Him) —God Forbid— is a child of fornica-
tion”?
Answer: By publicly cursing the Prophet, may the prayer of God be upon him and
his family; he is put to death as a blasphemer. 37
However, another important issue is to determine the procedure by which
the death penalty is administered. In other words the utterance of an insult does
not automatically oblige individual Muslims to act and kill the blasphemer. In
the following legal opinion, it becomes evident that only after judicial investiga-
tion and sentencing a curser is killed.
Question: While the Muslim Zeyd is having a controversy with the non-Muslim
Amr, the latter tells Zeyd “Why are you cruel to me, I belong to the people of his
Excellency the Prophet Isa (Jesus)”. If Zeyd abuse verbally Amr with words of sex-
ual connotation saying “I will do so and so to your mother and the mother of the
prophet Isa”, has Zeyd being blasphemous to his Excellency Isa (Peace be upon
Him)?
Answer: Yes he has.
In addition: If it has been proven by judicial procedure in the presence of a judge
that Zeyd was blasphemous, as it is written [above], is he killed without delay?
Answer: Yes. 38
The structure of the above legal opinion sheds a light on the recommended
procedural course of action in case of blasphemy. The utterance of words of
cursing are enough to qualify one as curser. However, only after his crime has
been proven in court —following the judicial procedure— one is sentenced to
death.
From the prism of the Ottoman jurist, verbal abuse should be punished ac-
cording to the nature of the abuse. If it was directed towards an individual,
his/her social status is taken into account. In other words the jurist looks into
what would have constituted an insult among the peers and within the social
class of the offended party. Thus, within the social pyramid constructed by
Muslim jurists, women and non-Muslims could procure the punishment of

37 Bekir-i Yahudi Beşir-i nasranîye “Sizin peygamberiniz İsa aleyhi’s-selam hâşa veled-i zinadır” dese

Bekir’e ne lazım olur? El-Cevab: Enbiyaya salavâtullahi teâla aleyhim ve selamuhu alenen seb ile ehl-i
küfür katlolunur. Feyziye, d. 854. 128.
38 Zeyd-i müslim ile Amr-i zimmînin beynlerinde müşâcere vakıa oldukda Amr Zeyd’e “Bana niçin eziyet

edersin ben Hazreti İsa Peygamber ümmetindenim” dedikde Zeyd Amr’a “Senin ananı da İsa Peygamerin
anasını da falan edeyim” deyu cima‘ lafzıyla şetmeylese Zeyd Hazreti İsa aleyhi’s-salâtü ve’s-selama sebbet-
miş olur mu? El-Cevab:Olur; Bu surette Zeyd’in vech-i muharrer üzere sebbettiği huzur-i hakimde vech-i
şer‘î üzere sabit olsa Zeyd bilâ-tehir katlolunur mu? El-Cevab: Olunur. Feyziye, n.856 and 857, 129.
60
 Words are Magic: Orality in Ottoman society and jurisprudential tradition

their abusers. Ultimately, what counts is whether the individual that is verbally
attacked deserves the protection of the community. If, by any means, one’s
reputation is questioned, then his abuse is not a crime.
Another form of verbal abuse relates to matters of faith and mannerism.
Verbal abuse against one’s parents is a grave crime and sin punished by the
state (ta‘zir). It has implications on one’s marriage and faith that would have to
be renewed. Finally the culprit will pay for the sin in the Hereafter.
On the other hand, cursing all the Prophets and the Prophet Muhammad’s
companions does effect immediately the capital punishment in Hanafi law. The
Ottoman jurists realizing the loophole in Hanafi jurisprudence, brought forth
the punitive power of the ruler to administer justice. By punishing blasphemy
through ta’zir two main issues are addressed. On the one hand, blasphemy is
kept within the realm of crimes against man, thus renewal of faith and marriage
is not required. On the other hand, although it looks as a more lenient ap-
proach, in fact it removes from the culprit the option to repent (tövbe). Thus, it
leads invariably to the death penalty. Even in this case though, judicial examina-
tion and a judge’s decision is required before chastisement is meted out.
Finally, it seems that in the legal jargon of fetvas, orality is harnessed to serve
legal and societal needs. Yet again despite the formulaic and occasionally
“wooden” language of fetvas, orality still conveys —in the most startling way—
real societal questions unlike classical fiqh manuals, as is the case in the follow-
ing question:
Question: What should happen to one who says, “In the name of God, God is Al-
mighty” (Bismillâh, Allâhû Ekber) and then he slaughters a pig?
Answer: Renewal of faith is required. 39
OR
Question: The Muslim Zeyd stares at the beautiful Christian Hind and says “If only,
I could be a non-believer, to be able to marry Hind!”. What should happen to
Zeyd?
Answer: Severe chastisement and renewal of faith and marriage. 40

39 “Bismillâh, Allâhû Ekber” deyu hınzır boğazlayan kimseye nesne lâzım olur mu? El-Cevab: Tecdîd-i

iman lâzım olur. Ertuğrul Düzdağ, Şeyhülislam Ebussuûd Efendi Fetvaları ışığında 16. asır Türk
Hayatı (Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1983), d. 500, 113.
40 Zeyd-i müslim cemîle olan Hind-i nasraniyeyi gördükde “Ne olaydı kâfir olaydım, Hind’i tezevvüç

ederdim” dese Zeyd’e ne lazım olur? El-Cevab: Ta‘zîr-i şedîd, tecdîd-i iman ve nikâh. Behcetü’l, d.1053,
198.
61