Fiqh analysis of Turkish historians controversial evaluations regarding Ottoman law

One of the controversial issues that has continued fromthe early years of theRepublic to the present day, and which has recently gained new momentumthroughhistorical documentary programs and TV series in the media, is whether the OttomanEmpire was governed by Islamic law (Sharīʿa). On this subject, both domesticandforeign researchers have written numerous books and articles. These works generallyfocus on the distinction between Sharīʿa and customary (ʿurfī) law, as well asonwhether Islamic law was influenced by different legal systems. In this study, weaimto examine, from a juristic (fiqh-based) perspective, the views and evaluationsoffour historians whose ideas initiated these debates in Turkey and who subsequentlycarried them forward. Within this framework, we first provided an overviewof thestructure and sources of Sharīʿa and ʿurfī law in the Ottoman Empire. Wethenbriefly addressed the controversial issues before analyzing how the aforementionedhistorians approached and evaluated these matters. Afterwards, we sought todetermine the extent to which their evaluations aligned with fiqh-based criteria. Ourstudy is limited to the aforementioned four historians. We collected the controversial issues discussed in their works—such as books, articles, and encyclopedia entries—and conducted a literature review. Based on this, we attempted to identify howeachhistorian evaluated the issues, highlighting both the accurate and the mistakenapproaches in relation to Islamic law. The main objective of our research is tobetterunderstand the legal system of the Ottoman Empire and to contribute to clarifyingtheongoing debates stemming from the Sharīʿa–ʿurfī law dichotomy. Furthermore, bypresenting the differing perspectives of historians and Islamic jurists on thesameissues, the study aims to evaluate these approaches in light of fiqh-based criteria.