Favored legal opinions (Mutfā bih) in Ataullah Mehmed Efendi's Majmuāt al-Ataiyya (The example of family law in comparison with Molla Husrev's Düreru'l-Hukkâm Şerhu Gureri'l-Ahkâm)

Studies to recognize the Ottoman understanding of law and literature have increased in number recently, but the area has not been adequately illuminated yet. Many issues are still waiting to be explored, especially in terms of the nature and extent of the Ottoman form of the Hanafite school. In this study, the concept of "mufta bih" was discussed within the frame of Mecmûa-i Atâiyye by Atâullah Mehmed Efendi, who can be considered as a representative of this law, in order to understand the legal structure of the Ottoman state, which is the implementer of Islamic law in a certain period and geography, The research is composed of introduction, three parts and conclusion. In the first part, the life of Şeyhülislâm Atâullah Mehmed Efendi and his work called Mecmûa-i Atâiyye are emphasized, and then some information about the XVII and XVIII century Ottoman family structure has been reported in line with the studies based on shar'iyya registers in particular, as a preliminary preparation for the third part of the thesis. In the second part, the concept of "mufta bih" was examined with a categorization in the form of "before and after the Ottoman Empire", and the nature of the concept was tried to be determined. In the third chapter, the issues of marriage and divorce were discussed via the Mecmûa-i Atâiyye of Şeyhülislam Atâullah Mehmed Efendi, and "mufta bih" judgments were determined through the records that point to a preferable view. In the perspective of these judgments and reasons of preference, it was concluded that in the Ottoman Empire, "mufta bih" was mostly shaped by certain scholars and works, and some legal reasons were included from time to time. The legal continuity was tried to be examined, by comparing determined "mufta bih" judgments with the work of Molla Husrev's Düreru'l-Hukkâm Şerhu Gureri'l-Ahkâm, which was one of the main sources of reference during the Ottoman period. As a result of this comparison it was concluded that the two authors generally adopt the same preferences; yet some small differences were observed in the justification of the judgments and the elaboration of the issues.