SHARIAsource

This document is a beyānnāme, or declaration, sent by the Ottoman reʾīsül-kuttāb (chief scribe) to Britain's ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, justifying the Ottoman declaration of war on Russia by explaining Russia's violation of treaty obligations. The document gives insight into eighteenth-century Ottoman attitudes to international law and its relationship with Islamic law. Its use of the phrase naḳż-ı ʿahd (breaking the treaty), which has its origins in a specifically Qurʾānic context illustrates one way in which war was legitimized within the Ottoman Empire. Other phrases used in the beyānnāme demonstrate how Ottoman legal plurality functioned within a martial context. 

In this source, al-Khallāl (d. 311/923) echoes the criteria adopted by al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820) for determining the credibility of witness. His approach is largely in line with that of Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855) and the Companion Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī (d. between 42 and 53/662–73). However, Khallāl slightly diverges in permitting non-Muslims to testify in the specific case regarding the last wishes of a Muslim who dies while traveling, a scenario explicitly condoned in Qurʾan 5:106. Aḥmad rejects the notion of non-Muslim uprightness forwarded by Ḥammād b. Sulaymān (d. 120/737) and Khayr b. Nuʿaym (in office 120-27/738-45), maintaining that individuals outside the Muslim community could not possibly be considered righteous in an objective sense given that they transgress fundamental commandments, for example they partake in wine and pork.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts (ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of sources and other material used in and related to the book.   

This document is a beyānnāme, or declaration, sent by Recāī Efendi, the Ottoman reʾīsül-kuttāb (chief scribe), to Britain's ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. It justifies the Ottoman declaration of war on Russia by explaining Russia's violation of treaty obligations, and gives insight into eighteenth-century Ottoman attitudes to international law and its relationship with Islamic law.

This appeal against the ruling reported in Malaya Law Journal XVII 12 was made on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to declare void the marriage between Maria Huberdina Hertogh and Inche Mansor Adabi, that Hertogh was a Muslim "in fact and in law," and that her marriage to Inche Mansor Adabi was valid. The Court ruled that the declaration of the illegality of the marriage was beyond the Court's jurisdiction, but that Hertogh was domiciled in Holland. As Inche Mansor Adabi had not proven that the marriage was valid by the laws of Holland, the Court had rightly ordered custody of Hertogh to be returned to her parents.

A.V.M. Horton edited this 1987 edition of the 1904 report written by M.S.H. McArthur on conditions in the Sultanate (and then-British protectorate) of Brunei. It is a detailed survey of government, administration, and social and economic conditions in the Sultanate, written to the end of informing British administration in Brunei. It predates the establishment of the Residency by two years. This edition includes Horton's preface and annotations, along with supplementary materials.

In this excerpt from his manual on judicial practice, Abū Bakr Ahmad b. ʿAlī al-Jaṣṣāṣ (d. 370/980) discusses "different types of duties to fight based on residence: an enhanced duty existed for people in frontier lands bordering enemy territory as compared to those living in the interior." Like many medieval jurists, Jaṣṣāṣ "privileges the ruler’s authority to utilize the jihād duty" for a variety of reasons, including additional strategic objectives beyond territorial defense. He also states that if a ruler desires to offensively engage the enemy in their territory, then the obligation is on individuals. For more on jihād, read Adnan A. Zulfiqar's essay “Territory and Jurisdiction” in the Roundtable on the History of Islamic International Law on the Islamic Law Blog.