A critical analysis of taking the only Hanafi sect as a basis in the preparation of Mecelle-i Ahkam-ı Adliye

Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliyye, which is the first example of codification based on Islamic law, has been criticized from different perspectives in terms of its preparation and content. The main reason for the criticism is that the reasoning method limited to the Hanafi sect is followed, therefore, the provisions on some issues are not in accordance with the requirements of the age, and the content is incomplete and redundant. Mecelle, according to some, is fiqh, the harbinger and beginning of the resurrection after the return. According to opposing views, it is likened to a step towards signing the death penalty in the classical legal system. Another view is that the diversity of opinions, which is one of the distinguishing features of fiqh, is one of the most important factors for legal change and flexibility in practice, but this possibility has disappeared due to the codification and standardization of the law. The preparation and content of the Mecelle has also been severely criticized at this point. The criticisms are mainly based on the use of the judicial method limited to the Hanafi sect. In addition to general criticism, some regulations of Mecelle were also criticized. Mecelle criticism, on the other hand, has very different aspects compared to classical text criticism. These criticisms are important in that they show the faults and defects of the first product based on the validation experience of fiqh. In addition, unlike other legal writings, it was made by a committee, was inspected by meşîhat and other distinguished scholars, was ordered by the sultan and bound the judges. For this reason, criticism of Mecelle, albeit to varying degrees, is directed at everyone who contributed to its preparations. Keywords: Ahmet Cevdet Paşa, Hanefi Mezhebi, İhtiyaçlar, Kanun Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliyye