Jennings - Zimmi Kayseri

Zimmis (Non-Muslims) in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of
Anatolian Kayseri
Author(s): Ronald C. Jennings
Source: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Oct., 1978),
pp. 225-293
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3632199
Accessed: 14/10/2009 06:50
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Economic and
Social History of the Orient.
http://www.jstor.org
Journalof the EconomicandSocialHistoryof the Orient,Vol. XXI, Part III
ZIMMIS (NON-MUSLIMS) IN EARLY

I7th CENTURY
OTTOMAN JUDICIAL RECORDS
THE SHARIA COURT OF ANATOLIAN KAYSERI
BY
RONALD C. JENNINGS
(Urbana)
THE ZIMMI (DHIMMI,NON-MUSLIM)POPULATIONOF KAYSERI*)
The zimmi (dhimmi, non-Muslim) population of Kayseri city and

province in the i6th and early I7th centurieswas composed of Arme-
nian Gregorian Christians(Ermeni) and Greek Orthodox Christians
*) Kayseri sicils are housed in the Etnografya Muzesi in Ankara, the Karaman,
Isparta, and Konya sicils are in the Mevlana Muzesi in Konya, the Amasya sicils
in the museum of Tokat, and the Trabzon sicils in the Topkapi SarayMuzesi Arsivi
in Istanbul. I wish to thank the directors and their staffs for generous hospitality;
I am particularly obligated to the staff of the Etnografya Muzesi, including the
director Bayan Enise Yener and the recently retired assistant director Bay Ziya
Ceran.This researchwas supported by grants from the American ResearchInstitute
in Turkey and from the University of California at Los Angeles (an NDEA title
IV grant). I wish to thank Prof. Andreas Tietze for some helpful criticism.
Archival sources are cited as follows: 15 56-4 means Kayseri sicil number 15,
page 56, entry 4. When a sicil from a collection other than that of Kayseri is cited
the name of the city is alwaysidentified.The pages in most volumes arenot numbered;
in such cases the author began counting with the firstpage containing court business.
Cases cited in the text have been summarized selectively on the basis of their
importance and relevance to the topic. It should be noted that a verdict is not a
part of the formal registration of cases in the sicils. An attempt has been made to
preserve the orthography of the documents, so variations in transliterationoften
occur. Reading certain zimmi names proved particularlytroublesome.
Abbreviations:
bn = son of; bint = daughter of; v. = veled= son of. In Ottoman documents
after 16oo, bn is used for Muslims and veledfor zimmis (non-Muslims). Forms of
suits: t.k. = takrir-i kelam;ik. = ikrar; d. = dava;t.m. = takrir-i meram.Ikrar,
an acknowledgment or confession, appears exclusively in non-contested cases.
The others, and iddia, describe contested cases.
15
226 R. C. JENNINGS
(Rum); there is no evidence of any Jews. The population of the city

in the I6th centuryindicates that it was one of the main urban centers
of Anatolia: in 1500 its population was 2287 tax-paying adult males
(nefer),representinga total population probably within the range of
6800 and 8000; and in 1523 the population was 2364 tax-paying adult
males (7I00 to 8300 inhabitants). By I550 the population had soared
to 3530 tax-paying adult males (a population of perhaps io,6oo to
I2,350); in the following 30 years the number of tax-paying adult
males more than doubled, to 825 I, a population of between 24,750 and
28,900, which made Kayseri perhaps second in population in Anatolia
only to Bursa 1).
The zimmi proportion of the urban population grew faster than the
Muslim portion. In I500 there were only 326 tax-paying adult male
zimmis in the city; by I523 that number had reached 457, 660 by I550,
and I816 by 1583, an increase of 457% in only 80 years. The zimmi
proportion of Kayseri's population rose from I4% in 1500 to 22%
in I5832).
The bulk of the zimmis--82% in I50o, 89% in I5 83-were Armenian
Christians. Swollen by a heavy influx of immigrants from the south
and the east, their numbers increased 506% (from 266 tax-paying
adult males to 1612) over 80 years. The Greek Orthodox Christians
increased 240% in the same period, from 60 tax-paying adult males
to 204, an increase far slower than that of the Muslims 3).
Unfortunately, since the Ottomans neglected to keep detailed pro-
vincial census records after the i6th century, it has not been possible
to determinethe precisepopulation of Kayserifor the period I60oo-I625.
The last quarterof the i6th century and the first quarterof the i7th,
particularlyin Anatolia, were marked by rampant inflation, naive
debasementof currency,breakdownin law and order, and a corrupting
I) The growth of Kayseri in the i6th c., and four other Anatolian cities as well,
is discussed in "Urban populations of Anatolia in the i6th century", International
Journalof Middle East Studies 7 (I976) 27-34, 5 I f
2) Ibid.
3) Ibid.
ZIMMIS IN OTTOMAN RECORDS 227
of the merit system4). Banditry, brigandage, and depredations by

demobilized soldiers armed with firearms against defenseless village
cultivators and urban artisans and merchants affected virtually the
whole populace of Anatolia. The evidence of contemporaryKayseri
judicial records suggests that at least zimmis there were particularly
vulnerable.
Unfortunately,the only availablepopulation data for Kayseri from
i6oo to I625 concerns the province as a whole, not just the city.
Moreover, those figures concern the cizye (jizya), the ancientIslamic
head tax on non-Muslim subjects; there are no comparablefigures
for Muslim inhabitants, and there is no reason to suppose that the
consequences on the zimmis exactly paralleled those on Muslims.
One would expect ruraldecline in population to have been sharpest,
for Kayseri had (and still has) stout walls which held off at least two
celali sieges, while the villages lay completely unprotected. At least
two kinds of migration were going on simultaneously:i) rural culti-
vators of Kayseri province were moving into or near the city for
safety; 2) refugees from furthereast were entering the province search-
ing for an areaof greatersecurity,and they might have settled in either
city or countryside; 3) inhabitants of Kayseri province, along with
other inhabitantsof Anatolia, were fleeing toward Istanbul and per-
haps Rumelia (Rumeli). Undoubtedly there was a great turnover in
population in Kayseri province throughout the period I600-I625;
however, the judicial records which I have used as my source leave
unanswered many questions about the complexity of this movement.
Before I603 the number of tax-payingadult male zimmis in Kayseri
province (sancak)had apparentlyalways been over 5ooo. [See Table I.]
The numbers for I603, I604, and 1605 were 3257, 2126, and I452.
If one supposes that the number of zimmis paying cizye in 6o02was
only 5000, that would indicate a drop in registered zimmis of 35%,
4) See for exampleHalil Inalcik, TheOttomanEmpire:theClassicalAge, I300-I600,

London, 1973, pp. 50 f. Cf. Mustafa Akdag, Celali Isyanlar (IJ-o-I60o), Ankara,
I963, passim; and Mustafa Cezar, OsmanliTarihinde
Levendler,Istanbul, I965, passim.
228 R. C. JENNINGS
35%, and 32% in successiveyears-71% over the four years, 55% over
the last three years. Such a drop is hardly credible in almost any con-
text outside the one at hand: the height of the celaliscare in Anatolia,
when Kayseri itself was besieged by brigands for part of a summer5).
No informationhas been uncovered for the following 14 years, but
by 1619 the number of cizye-paying zimmis was back to 2008; for
I620, 1623, and 1624, the number seems to have been 2775 6), but per-
haps the registerssimply were not brought up to date over that period
because a firman of 1624 orders a careful recount of the number of
zimmis, asserting that the officials should be able to register at least
zimmis 7). Indeed the tone of that firman seems to suggest that the
500ooo
5) A document dated 2 Cumadi I IoI9 ( 6 o) but registered after 9 Cumadi II

o019concerns a claim made at Kayseri court by the imperialagent (mubasir)charged
with collecting the cizye against the local man in charge of collecting the cizye, the
head (kethuda)of the zimmi community, and the zimmis themselves. Mustafa Beg
claims that the collection for 012 and 1013 must have been remiss because in the
past Kayseri has always had more than 500ooo cizye-paying zimmis. [I5 43-I] The
number of cizye-payingzimmis in Kayseri province is included in an imperial order
(emr)addressedby the Porte to the kadi of Kayseri in response to a petition (ar~u-
hal) made by Bagvand Kethuda. [I5 244-I; I5 Rebi I io2o; registered 20 Rebi II
o020. The figure 3256 (instead of 3257) for IOI2 is given elsewhere. I5 39-5; 7
CumadiII o119]
6) A beratissued for the collection of the cizye of 16I9 (Io28) indicates 2008
zimmis. [20 24I-I; 20 Rebi II 1027, registered I7 Cumadi I 1027] The original
figure for i620 (1029), 1623 (I032), and I624 (I033) was 2808, which was registered
in the cizye defter. However, errors were found, including 20 names in one mahalle
(quarter)registeredtwice, so the number was reduced to 2775. [20 190-I; 15 Zilkade
I027; 522 zimmis whose cizye was tied to the treasury at Aleppo (Haleb ha~inesi)
are mentioned as scattered in the district (perakende).]The cizye of I624 (I033) is
mentioned in several documents: [23 42-6 & 7; 23 Zilhicce 1032. 23 66-I2; 12
Sevval 1033. 24 79-I; 20 Zilhicce 1032. 24 79-4; 20 Zilhicce Io32. 24 83-I; 29 Zil-
hicce 1032]
7) Separate orders to Dilaver Aga and to the kadi of Kayseri concerning the
registration of zimmis for cizye command emphatically that at least 5000 names
should be registered for 1034 (I625). [25 141-4; for I034 (1625). 2 Zilhicce 1033,
for I034. 25 141-5; 25 Rebi I 1034] It is not clear whether the Porte really believed
so large a number of zimmis could be mustered in the province or whether the
Porte had simply decided to increase its income. Neither is it clear to what extent
these orders were carried out, although on 29 Rebi II 1034 the zimmis of the city
publicly agreed to cooperate in the required new enumeration, to collect cizye in
accordancewith it, and to make certain that all zimmis are registered, even those
who are excused or exempt. [25 57-I]
zimmi population of Kayseri should be able to bear the tax burden

of 5000 even if there may not be that many. If Kayseri zimmis did
recover their old numbers (as of I602) by I625, the process must have
been a rapid one. Can a population demonstratedso vulnerable also
have been so resilient? Probably the internal social and economic
conditions of Anatolia in the 16o1's and I62o's were not so settled as
to encourage or to permit substantialpopulation growth. The decline
of I602-I605 I can understand,but an actual recovery to 500ooo tax-
paying adult males by 1625may well be a fantasyof Istanbulbureaucrats.
In the absenceof hard data the fate of the Muslimpopulation during
the period can only be conjectured.Probablythere was a greaterreserve
of Muslims in Kayseri province and further east than of zimmis to
replace a dwindling population. The rapid rate of growth of the Ar-
menianChristianpopulationin the 6th centuryis a factorto remember,
although that trend may have been temporaryand indeed may have
been due to outside immigration rather than a higher birthrate.One
would expect a sharp drop in Muslim population too, particularlyin
ruralareas.
THE PLIGHT OF THE ZIMMIS OF KAYSERI
Simeon of Poland, an Armenian, travelled widely between i608

and 1619, visiting Istanbul, Venice, Rome, Cairo, and Jerusalem, as
well as Anatolia. He chronicles vividly the catastrophic effects of
celali on the Armenians of Anatolia, and in so doing he gives many
indications of the general conditions there as well.
When Simeon reachedIstanbulin 60o8,he became aware of a great
influx of Armeniansfleeing the depredationsof the celali;their numbers
in the city increasedfrom 80 [error for 8,000?] baneto 40,000, while
others continuedin flight on to the Balkans8). In Rome in I6II Simeon
learnedthat angorawool (from Ankaraand centralAnatolia) no longer
(I608-I 619), tr. Hrand Andreasyan,Istanbul,

8) Polonyall Simeon, Seyahatnamesi
I964, p. 4 Simeon's special concern was Armenians. Hane = house or hearth,
usually estimatedto include 5 or 5.5 persons.
230 R. C. JENNINGS
was reaching that city on account of the celali9). Two years later he
found the very fertile agriculturallands around Sivas uncultivatedand
desolate on account of the celali,while the Armenianpopulace of the
city had declined from 2000 haneto 600; likewise in nearby Tokat the
Armenian population had declined from o000 baneto 500 10). Villages
around Palu had been destroyed by the celali and all the Armenian
inhabitants were dispersed1). In Cairo in I6x5 Simeon found over
200 bane of Anatolian Armenians, all refugees from the celali: he met
a priest who was from Niksar and a monk from Tokat 12). Soon Simeon
learned that the Armenian patriarchatein Jerusalemwas sufferingin
debt on account of the celali; they had impoverished and killed so
many Armeniansthat the patriarchatehad stopped receiving pilgrims
and even gifts 13).
In 6I 8 Simeon reachedKayseri, where he spent a month. Although
the city had hans, covered markets, shops, bazaars, and goldsmith
shops, its appearance generally was one of ruin. Demoralized by
celalidepredations,the populace would not undertakeany reconstruc-
tion. The city had only 500 bane of Armenians, he was told 14).
Simeon's account is not exaggerated. The zimmis, and indeed the
Muslims, of Kayseri experienced terrible hardships throughout the
period I600-I625. The documents summarized below illustrate their
distress:
To Kayseri kadi, know that: For the past few years there has been a movement of
zimmis (kefere)from Aleppo, Maras,Adana, Payas, Tarsus, Kars, Sis, Elbistan,
Rum Kale, Darende, Zamanto, ;emisgezek, and Harput. Sometimes they
settle in your lands without paying cizye... [they should all be registered in
Kayseri] [ii 87-449; 13 Cumadi II IOI5 (i6o6)]
To Elbistanli kadi, know that: 600 adult zimmis are recorded in the defter of the
ka:a of Elbistan. Their annual cizye goes to the treasuryof Aleppo. In the last
9) Ibid., p. 45.
io) Ibid., p. 86 ff. The Armenians of Zeytun village declined from 800 hane to
30, p. 158.
I ) Ibid., p. 93.
12) Ibid., p. Io6.
13) Ibid., p. I34.
I4) Ibid., p. 58 if.
ZIMMIS IN OTTOMAN RECORDS 23I
5 or 6 years many people have been dispersed because of the depredations of

bandits (efkiya)and not one akce of cizye (harac)has been paid to the treasury
of Aleppo. Now some of the village zimmis (kefere)have returned to their
places, so it is suitable for them to pay cizye for this year ioI8, in accordance
with sharia and kanun .... [13 107-1; II Rebi I IoI8 (I609)]
To Kayseri kadi, know that: The people (ahalisi)of Muncusunvillage came to court
saying that our old defter registered I 3 adult males to pay cizye in our village.
We have been beset by bandits and brigands (erkiyave Zorba)like Kalender
ogli, Tavil, and Agacdan Piri, who ruin our villages, carry off our families and
goods, and kill us... [I4 68-i; io Receb 10I7 (I6o8)]
To the kadis in the places listed in the Kayseri cizye defter, know that: ... When
they wanted to collect the cizye, some zimmis did not give it, saying most of
them were no longer there, and others who have lived in Kayseri more than
o1 years claim that they are registered in other defters and refuse to pay ...
[15 207-2; 23 Receb o020 (I6II)]
MustafaBeg, mubafirfor the matterfrom the imperialsilihdartk FerhadBeg bn Haci
Cafer,ebna'-i sipahiyanwho collected cizye from the infidels (kefere) of Kayseri
for o 12 and 01 3, Bagvandv. Kucuk, kethudaof the infidels (kefere)of Kayseri,
several other Kayseri zimmis, Talas village kethuda Sahin, Erkilat [modern
Erkilet] village kethuda Kel Murad, Agirnas village kethuda Yaceb (?) v.
Ovanos, Muncusun village kethuda Bogos v. Hizir (?) Bese, Deli (?) and Aseb
from Mancusun village, Arzuman v. Buge Beg from Isbile village, and Moli
village kethuda ?adi v. Anasdas: Although the cizye (harac) of those zimmis
was always more than 500ooo [i.e., the number who paid cizye], Ferhad gave
the treasurycizye for 3257 in 1oI2 and for 2226 in I013. I demand the rest in
accordance with the old defter, whether the debt is that of the zimmis or of
Ferhad. Ferhad maintains that he collected the proper amounts for IoI2 and
10I3, in accordancewith the new defter (defter-icedid)and then he gave over
all that he collected. The infidels (kefere) testify that in o102, by order (emr) of
kadi Mehmed Hakimi Efendi, they registered everyone, hane by hane and vil-
lage by village. We paid the correct amount and nothing more that year, and
likewise the following year. Written at the request of Ferhad Beg. [I5 43-1;
I Cumadi II io9 (1619) Cf. I5 118-4; 4 Zilhicce IoI9. I5 119-3; 5 Zilhicce
o109]
To Dilaver, ebna'-i sipahiyan and now kethudayeriof the alti bolukhalk in Kayseri,
know that: The cizye defters of the infidels (kefere) have not been corrected
for the past few years (bir kac sene),and they can support more hane; for 1034
you should register 5ooo hane. I order that: You should register the zimmis
as 5ooo hane and collect cizye. You should register all zimmis, even those who
are haymanaand haricet defter;no zimmi should remain unregistered. Do this
justly (cadl).... [25 141-4; 2 Zilhicce 1033 (1624)]
To Kayseri kadi, know that: Apart from the Kayseri infidels (kefere) being able to
support more cizye hanes, the cizye defter has not been correctedand registered
for a few years. Kayserialti boluk kethuda Dilaver Aga is in charge. He should
register them as 5000 hane. I order that: When Dilaver Aga comes, carry out
my orders. There should be no abuses but justice should be done... [25 I41-5:
25 Rebi I I034 (I625)]
232 R. C. JENNINGS
The number of tax-payingmale adult zimmis in 1583, the last com-

plete "census" for Kayseri province, was I816 (24%) in the city and
5693 (76%) in the villages, a total of 7509 15). [See Table VIII.] Until
1602 (ioII) the numbers remained above 5000, at least. The three
following years the figures are 3257, 2126, and I452. We do not know
the proportion in the city or in the villages, but the total numbers in
the province in I605 were less than I/5 the number in I583, scarcely
20 yearsearlier.[See Table I.] In this light, Simeon of Poland's estimate
of 500 Armenianhanesin the city of Kayseriin I618--he does not men-
tion the number of Greek Orthodox, nor indeed of Muslims-suggests
that decline in villages was much more severe than in the city, but
even in the city the number of adult male Armenian taxpayerswas
less than I/3 of what it had been in I5 83.
CIZYE(JIZYA)
i. The Amount of Ciye
The per capita cizye paid in Kayseriincreasedsharplybetween I605

and I626. In I605 Kayseri zimmis were paying I74 akce. Between
I6I2 and I6I5 the amount increased to 200 akce; between i6io and
I623 it increasedto 215 akce, and the following year the level reached
220 akce. The 26% increase in two decades far surppassedthe slight
decline in the value of the akceover that same period. [See Table II.]
Zimmi cultivators attached to lands belonging to evkaf paid a
slightly lower cizye than did other zimmis. The zimmis connected
with the Haci Ahmed Basa and the Sah Ruh evkaf paid a cizye of 135
akce in I607, increased by I6I5 to 174 akce, to 189 by I623, and to
194 by I626. The cizye of zimmi cultivators of vakf lands increased
43%, compared with 26% for other zimmis 16).
15) Tapu defter no. 136, Kayserli liva. 992 (I583). Tapu ve Kadastro, Ankara.
i6) For I6o5 (1014)-I5 244-I; 15 Rebi I o020. 1607 (ioi6)-II 92-462; 4 Zil-
kade IOI5. i6o8 (1017)-14 55-I; 6 Cumadi I ioI6. I609 (o108)-13 98-2; 29 Sevval
ioi8. I609 (IoI8)-13 107-I; II Rebi I Ioi8. 1609 (IoI8)-14 74-I; 9 Muharrem
ioi8. i6io (1019)-13 8o-i; III Zilkade ioi8. i612 (I02z)-15 207-I; 22 Receb
The cizye in all provinces was not necessarily the same, although
the firmansgive no explanationsof those differences.As early as I609
and 16o1, zimmis of Maras, Elbistan, and Sis were paying 200 akce
cizye, when 174 akce was still being paid in Kayseri 17).
Although one might have expected to find a graduatedtax such as
proposed by the great Hanefi jurists Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, the
cizye in Kayseri province was discussed strictly on a per capita basis,
with no gradients 18). Although one does not encounter legal cases
involving zimmis claiming to be too poor to pay cizye, the apparent
method of levying that tax in Kayseri was regressive and may have
worked hardship on the zimmi poor. Of course, it is not impossible
that within their own communities the zimmis re-allocated the tax
burden in accordancewith wealth. On occasion the cizye in Kayseri
was collected in advance from leaders of the zimmi communitieswho
in turn collected from their communities.
By tradition, apparently,adult male zimmis in Kayseri all paid the
1020. I615 (1024)-17 II2-I; 5 Rebi II I023. I617 (ioz6)-Karaman I 72-I; io

ewval i026. 1619 (oz028)-20 241-I; 20 Rebi II I027. i620 (1029)-z20 i90-; I5
Zilkade 1027. 1623 (1032)-24 93-I; 24 Receb I032. 1624 (1033)-24 83-I; 29 Zil-
hicce 1032. x625 (I034)-z5 io6-i; 13 Receb 1033. i626 (I035)-27 277-2.
I7) Inalcik has shown the wide disparity in amounts of cizye required in pro-
vinces. For details, see "Djizya", EI2. He suggests that the level of cizye imposed
on easternAnatolia was low because of poverty there. The three contiguous Balkan
sancaks of Segedin, Semendire, and D'Ula respectively paid 67 akce, 6o akce, and
68 akce cizye. B. McGowan, "Food Supply and Taxation on the Middle Danube
(I568-1575)", Archivum OttomanicumI (1969) I75, I94. Fetvas of Ebussuud indicate
two standardsof payment: (i) 12 dirhems from those poor who possess less than
200 dirhems, 20 dirhems from those of moderate wealth who possess 200 to o,ooo0
dirhems, and 40 dirhems from the rich with at least Io,0oo dirhems; (2) 12 dirhems
from those poor who possess less than 200 dirhems, 24 dirhems from those who
possess 200 to o0,000dirhems, and 48 dirhems from the rich with more than io,ooo.
M. E. Diizdag, Seyhiilislam
EbussuudEfendi Fetvalar:,Istanbul, 1972, p. 97, # 414,
416. Ebusuud further equates o0,000 dirhem with 42,000 old akce or 45,000 new
akce, p. 97, #4 5.
8) A. Fattal,Le StatutdesNon-musulmans enPaysd'Islam.Beyrouth, I958, p. 264 if.
12 dirhems for poor, 24 for middle, 48 for rich.
According to Inalcik there were no
gradations in cizye taken in lands conquered from the Mamluks. In Adana andDa-
mascus, 80 akce was takenuntil the reign of Selim II, and thereafter90 akce, "Djizya",
EI2.
234 R. C. JENNINGS
same amount of cizye. The kanunname of 1500 (906) for Kayseri pro-
vince reiteratesthat for a long time the infidels there had always paid
26 akce each, and they used to pay other dues (rusum)like the Mus-
lims ("Ve keferesi kadimden[text, dadimden]yirmi altisar akge harac
[i.e., cizye] virtib sayir riisumu miisliimanlargibi viriigelmisler.")19).
This system contrastssharplywith that of Karamanprovince, of which
Kayseri province was administrativelya part (although preserving
much of its old kanun from before being joined to Karamanprovince
late in the I5th century). In Karamanin I583, the cizye was carefully
graduated: the rich paid from 60 or 80 to 90 akce apiece, the poor
30 akce, and those intermediate paid between 30 and 60 akce 20).
On two occasions a small extraordinarylevy was addedto the regular
cizye. In one case, 5 akce was asked for each of two imperialaccessions
(culus),a total of o0akce. In the other case, 12 akce apiece was required
for a single accession. Both are connected with the accession of Sultan
Osman II on 26 February 6i 8 (i Rebi I 1027).
On I6 April I6 8 the vizier in Amid (Diyar Bekr), heading on cam-
paign, issued an order for the collection of cizye in Kayseri for I619
(oz028).In addition to the regularly assessed 200 akce, 5 akce apiece
for each of two imperialaccessionswas to be collected ("mukaddemen
ve hala vaki olan culus-i humayun"; "beser akceden ki on akce ider
cizyeleri ile cem'en ikiser yuz onar akce olmak uzere"; "iki culus-i
humayun akceleri"). Osman II only had one accession, of course,
although it is not unlikely that the gratuity due the deposed Sultan
Mustafa I, who had only come to the throne on 22 November 1617
(23 Zilkade I026), had never been collected 21).
I9) OmerLiitfiBarkan,XV ve XVIinci asirlarda

OsmanlImparatorlugunda
Zirat
EkonomininHukuki ve Malt Esaslart, v. I, Kanunlar,Istanbul, I943, p. 57. no. 5.
20) "Recherchessur la
Nicoara Beldiceanuand Irene Beldiceanu-Steinherr,
Province de Qaramanau XVIe siecle", JESHO 11 (I968) p. 71 if. In Karaman a
recountof zimmisevery threeyearswas required.Responsibilityfor the increase
in the cizye must be attributed to the severe inflation between I580 and I6oo. Of
course,it wouldbe usefulto knowjustwhatwasbeingpaidin KayseriandKaraman
in the sameyear.
21) 20 244-I; 20 Rebi II 1027.
Apparently young Osman's advisers were not satisfied with what

they levied for I6I9, because on 4 December 1618 (15 Zilkade 1027),
while returningfrom the summercampaign,the vizier wrote to Kayseri
concerning the cizye for 620o (I029). In addition to the regularly
assessed 200 akce, 12 akce was to be collected in honor of the imperial
succession, making a total of z2o [!] akce from each zimmi ("her bir
hanesindenasl cizyelerigunikiser yuz ve culus-i humayunumterakki-
lerigun on iki akce ki cem'en ikiser yuz onar akce cizyelerin")22).
Perhapsit was decided that the initial 5 akce levy was not sufficiently
large to be flattering; or perhaps the levy was simply being spread
over more than one year to ease the burden on the zimmis. At any
rate, those were the only two instances of additional levies attached
to the regular imperial orders for cizye.
The distinction between hane (family)and nefer (adult male), which
is so important to i6th century Ottoman tax terminology, no longer
exists in the first quarter of the i7th century, at least in documents
concerning Kayseri; the two terms are used synonymouslyin parallel
documents and and even sometimes within a single document. The
meaning of neferseems to be the prevalentone.
The cizye paid by Kayseri zimmis was not innocuous, but it was by
no means a crushing burden. For each adult male it representedper-
haps half the cost of a donkey 23). If, as the kanunname of 1500 states,
the cizye was the only tax the zimmis paid in excess of what Muslims
paid, the amount was certainlynot great enough to impose a burden
so unequal as to put individual zimmis at a substantialeconomic dis-
advantage in their competition with Muslims for land and trade.
22) 20 190-I; 15 Zilkade 1027.

23) S. D. Goitein indicates that, although he had supposed the cizye "not a
heavy imposition", he had underestimatedthe "persistentlack of cash". v. II, p. 381.
A Mediterranean Society,Berkeleyand Los Angeles, 1967, I971. Moreover, in Fatimid
Cairo, the indigent, invalid, and old were no longer exempt from the levy. Speros
Vryonis, Jr., calls the cizye an "onerous tax", p. 359. TheDeclineof MedievalHellenism
in Asia Minor and the Processof IslamiZation from the Elevenththroughthe Fifteenth
Century,Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1971.
236 R. C. JENNINGS
of theCizye
2. Collection
Kadis, imperialofficialssent to collect the cizye, and sometimes even

local sancakbegs were requiredby the imperialgovernment to collect
in accordance with the cizye (or ispence)defter, the record book in
which the names of all adult male zimmis are registered24). No one,
warn the imperialorders,may collect cizye from any zimmiwhose name
is not manifestly on the cizye defter; moreover, no one may collect
a single akce in excess of what the imperial government has levied for
the coming year. Nevertheless, the kadis and other officials involved
in the collection of cizye are exhorted to make sure that every single
adult male zimmi is registered. One firman, more specific than most,
urges that officials should look closely for unregisteredzimmis, par-
ticularlythose just reachingpuberty [the age of adulthood-maturity]
and those who have lived in a place at least ten years but still claim to
be registeredelsewhere.[After ten yearsresidencein a district,one must
register there unless he can prove a continuing relationshipwith his
old home; migrants avoided paying taxes at their former residences,
24) The traditionalIslamicdistinctionsbetween thejizya (cizye) and kharaj(harac),

the two special taxes levied on zimmis, have entirely disappearedin I7th century
Kayseri. Both imperial and local documents use the terms interchangeably, even
within a single document. E.g., 1 87-449; 13 CumadiII 1o 5 ("vaki' olan cizyeleri
taleb olundukda", "vaki' olan haraclaritaleb olundukda", "lazim gelan haraclarin
kanun ve defter mucibince firman olundugi uzere"). 14 53-2; III Ramazan Ioi6
("kaza'-i Zamanto karyelerinde sakinlerinden olan zimmilerun haraclari: ba'is-i
tahrir-i huruf oldurki kaza'-i Zamanto perakendesinunbin on yedi senesinde vacib
olan cizyesi Serkis veled-i Kara Goz ve Tercan nam zimmiler yedinden miri icun
haraclarinalinub kabzidub"). I5 I4-1; 25 Rebi II io19 ("Kaysariyyecizyesini emr-i
?erifile cem' iden haraccidencem' ve tahsil olunan cizyenun kabzi icun").
Actually, in early Islam the two terms were long confounded. A. Ben Shemesh
says: "Jizya and Kharaj are used by Muslim scholars indiscriminatelyand inter-
changeable,sometimes to denote land tax and sometimes poll-tax. . . Later these two
terms were used more cautiously so that 'Jizya' came to mean 'poll-tax" only and
'Kharaj' 'land tax'," p. 20. Taxationin Islam, v. III, Abu Yusuf'sKitab al-Kharaj,
Leiden, 1969. However, in the Ottoman empire the concept of kharajas land tax
is lacking.
A fetva by Ebussuud declaresthat a kadi acting as a registrarof the defters (katib)
who wrongly exempts any zimmis from the cizye must be dismissed. Diizdag, p. 97,
# 417. Concealing one's son from the registrarwas an imprisonable offense. p. 97 f,
418.
particularlyin the confusion of the celali years, and at the same time
tried to escape registrationat the new residenceby claiming that they
pay elsewhere.] 25). Every adult male zimmi was obligated to pay cizye
somewhere.
Officials were warned to accept only perfect whole coins. Debased
coinage had scrupulously to be avoided, and the values of coinage
which was current and acceptable for payment were included when
the official orders for payment were sent to the province.
The money seems to have been collected by the zimmi kethudas
or their agents. Then it was brought to the court at Kayseri, where
it was registered,bagged, sealed, and given to the two imperialagents
(usually spahis or janissaries)assigned to collect the revenue. They
arrived with their berats, picked up the money, gave receipts, and
delivered it to wherever the imperialgovernment ordered. Sometimes
it was to be brought to the imperial treasury (money from Maras
and Elbistan then would go to the treasury at Aleppo). When the
imperial armywas campaigningin the east the money was usually sent
to pay soldiers and purchase supplies 26). One year the money was
kept in Kayseri to pay for repairs to the castle there 27).
Apparently zimmis were given receipts (tetkere,occasionally called
temessuk)which they could use as proof of payment. Late payments
were supposed to be brought to the attentionof the court, which could
summon the delinquent zimmi to account. On at least one occasion
the kethuda of the zimmis of Kayseri, Bagvand v. Kucuk, paid the
cizye for the whole community in advance and then collected what
he had paid out.
One of the problems of collecting the cizye in early I7th century
Kayseri was determininga zimmi's legal residence,where he must pay
his tax. People are always eager to avoid paying taxes, and the turbu-
lent circumstancesof the early I7th century provided unusual oppor-
25) 15 207-I; 23 Receb 020o.
26) E.g., ii 92-462; 4 Zilkade Ioi5. I3 80-I; III Zilkade Ioi8. I3 107-1; II Rebi
I ioi8. I4 55-I; 6 Cumadi II IOI6. I5 26I-I; 23 $evval o109. 20 I90-I; I5 Zilkade
1027. 20 241-I; 20 Rebi II 1027. 24 94-I; 9 Zilhicce 1032.
27) I3 34-7; 2I Zilhicce Ioi8.
238 R. C. JENNINGS
tunities to do so. The considerableinternalmigrationmade it virtually

impossible to keep trackof people. Moreover, in Kayseri,farmerswere
in short supply, and every timar-holderand vakf supervisor (mutevelli)
would have been so eager to induce potential cultivators to settle on
lands from which he derived income that he might well have winked
at rules requiring the reaya to keep paying taxes to the place where
they were registeredfor ten years after leaving.
Any number of cases occurred involving suits by local people-
usually zimmis, but sometimes Muslims assigned to tax collecting-
to require that certain zimmis pay cizye with them. It is not clear to
what extent these suits representreal disputes between zimmis, for it
is possible that at least some of these suits simply represent efforts
by responsible zimmis to determine where individual zimmis should
pay their cizye. Since the cizye was an individualratherthan a communal
tax, where the men paid their tax should not have affectedother zimmis.
However, the claimants do seem to display a certain eagerness in
trying to substantiatetheir claims.
Gazir (?) v. (?) seh and Asya (?) v. Kirkor of Sisliyan mahalle tk Toros v. Kirkor:
He used to pay cizye (harac)to our mahalle. Now he will not. Toros says that
he used to pay cizye to the mahalle,,but then 'Acem Efendi registered me at
Yalman mahalle and now I pay my cizye there. Two zimmi witnesses confirm
this claim and conclude that Toros may pay cizye to Yalman mahalle. The
accusers are restrained. [20 68-2; II Receb 1027]
Zimmi Saye of Bektas mahalle tk Sefer v. Ihtiyar: Sefer used to give cizye (harac)
to our mahalle. Now he resists doing so. Sefer insists that he gives cizye to the
vakf of Medine'-i munevvere. Saye has no proof, so Sefer is allowed to swear
(yeminbillah)that he pays cizye to the vakf. [20 68-3; II Receb I027]
Gazir (?) v. (?) seh, Asya v. Kirkor, and Turmus v. (?) of Tasra Sehir Sisliyan tk
Bali v. Polad: Bali paid cizye (harac)to us for I5 years. Now he does not. Bali
says that he pays it to Ermeniyan mahalle, not to them. However, two zimmi
witnesses testify that Bali gave cizye for I5 years to the Sisliyan mahalle. [20
70-3; Receb 1027]
Zimmi Kara Devlet tk zimmi Bogos: He used to pay his cizye (harac)to us. Now
he does not. Bogos denies this charge. Kara Devlet has no witnesses but he
requests an oath from Bogos. Bogos takes an oath (yemin billah) of denial.
[20 70-6; i6 Receb I027]
Tatar v. Pitur of Kafir Oren village of Develu kasaba tk Bahtiyar v. Asutatar of
Sisli mahalle of Kayseri: He is from our village and has paid cizye with us up
until now. Now he will not pay. Bahtiyarclaims that Bektas Beg has registered
him for the above mahalle and he pays cizye there. Two zimmi witnesses con-
firm Bahtiyar and their testimony is accepted. [25 68-3; 19 Cumadi I 1034]
Tatar v. Pitur of Kafir Oren village of Develu kasabatk Hafator v. Barak of ?ehre
Gusti mahalle: He is from our village and he has always paid cizye to us up
until now. Now he will not pay. Hacator claims that Bektas Beg has registered
him for the aforementioned mahalle and he gives cizye there. Two zimmi
witnesses confirm Ha9ator. [25 74-2; 26 Cumadi I I034]
Makdesi v. Asutator, Cirak v. Yagob (?), Mukkades Varsak (?), and others of
Hacili village tk Anderik v. Hacik and Barsamav. Hanis of (?) village: Kiragos
v. Panis is from our village and used to pay cizye with us, but Anderik and
Barsamahave prevented him from doing so. Anderik and Barsamainsist that
the sealed defter of the collector of the cizye (haracci)should be examined. That
defter confirms their claim. Kiragos is registeredin their village, and the others
are restrained. [27 49-5; 28 Ramazan 1035]
Murad (;avus, who is charged with collecting the cizye for 1034 from (?) village
tk 3o zimmis from that village: These 30 zimmis are from the aforementioned
village. I want their cizye for the year 1034, in accordance with the imperial
order I have. The zimmis claim that they are from the village but have come to
Kayseri, where they are now registered for cizye with the infidels of the city.
We paid our cizye to Kayseri sancak begi Bektas Beg in accordance with his
order, and we have paid it every year since o02o. We gave cizye to Dilaver
Aga for 0o33. We have a sealed receipt (tugralusuret-idefter)from Haci Huseyn
Beg, who collected it that year. So, in accordancewith the receipt (suret-idefter)
Murad C(avusis restrained.[27 47-I; 26 Ramazan Io35]
Bagadasar,Hizir (?) Seh, and Mercan of Yalman mahalle tk Hizir (?) v. Zekeriya:
Hizir used to pay cizye to our mahalle. Let him pay it now. Hizir claims that
Dilaver Aga has tied his cizye to Talas village: I pay it there. When Hizir is
asked for proof, Ahmed Beg bn Abdullah and Dede Bali bn Ahmed confirm
him. The three claimants are restrained. [27 io6-I; 20 Zilhicce 1035] [Cf. 22
46-6; I5 Rebi I Io3I. 23 62-7; 27 Ramazan I033. 25 56-4; 29 Rebi II 1034. 25
68-4; 19 Cumadi I I034. 25 69-I; 19 Cumadi I I034. 27 105-3; 19 Zilhicce
1035. 27 I09-I; 28 Zilhicce I035]
A few cases may be set forward to illustrate the kinds of exemption

to paying cizye which were allowed by the court in Kayseri. These
cases serve as well to illustratethe judicialprocess as it relatesto zimmis.
The infidels (keferetaifesi)who live in Sarimsakluvillage tk blind zimmi Dugunci:
Dugunci is from our village and must pay cizye with us. Dugunci asserts that
he is blind and cannot earn a living: I have a fetva. The fetva says: If Agob
is blind and cannot earn a living, can cizye be taken from him? No. So the
people of the village are restrained.[25 30-2; 8 Rebi I I034]
Ku9uk v. (?) of Isbitin village tk Nevruz v. Gulabi: I want the cizye of his son
Eymur (?) Han. Nevruz claims that his son's right foot and right arm are in-
jured. He is not able to support himself. Ku9uk denied this claim. When Nevruz
was asked for proof, Sefer v. Koca and Kara Bid [Karabed]v. Dugunci con-
firmed his claim. [27 io6-5; 24 Zilhicce 1035]
Kumri and Sunbul: We want cizye from Hizir's (?) son Kaya. Their claim is re-
strained because Kaya is a minor (sagir).[23 44-II; 29 Zilhicce I033]
240 R. C. JENNINGS
(?) v. (?), zimmi of Ay Kostandin village tk Istorfi (?) Kesi? (priest) v. (?): The
ke?i?does not give his cizye to us. The kesis replies: I am a priest; priests are
exempt from cizye accordingto an imperialorder (emr-iserif). So he is prevented
from paying cizye. [20 72-I; i6 Receb 1027]
In Kayseri apparentlyonly adult male zimmis (i.e., who have passed
puberty) who were physically capable of working were required to
pay cizye; and there was a special exemption for the religious class,
despite views to the contraryof some Muslim scholars.
3. MoneyRatios& thePaymentof Cizye

Most of the imperial orders regarding the collection of the cizye
from the zimmis of Kayseri which are recorded in the judicial record
books include a brief statement near the end concerning the relative
values of the coinage in circulation, expressing all in terms of akce.
Presumablythe ratios applied to the empire as a whole. As Table IV
shows, the coinage was quite stable for the period I607 to I625. The
altun,or gold coin, remainedconstant except for one year, as did the
kamilguruf.The akce itself held firm until at least 620, when it declined
slightly relative to the dirhemstandard,from 9 i/z to o1 and finally
to ii in I625. The table suggests a slight weakening of the coinage
between I620 and I624, but only in the case of the akce does there
seem to have been any problem28). Paymentof cizye by Kayserizimmis
was not hamperedby uncertaincoinage.
CONVERSION
Conversionto Islam was a simple procedure.One simply was exalted

by the glory or excellence of Islam (Qeref-i Islam ile muferref).One left
vain religion (batildin)for the religion of Muhammad(din-iMuhammed),
the religion of Islam (din-iIslam), or the religion of truth (din-ihakk).
28) I607 (o106)-ii 92-462; 4 Zilkade loI5. I6o8 (1017)-14 55-I; 6 Cumadi
II 10o6. I6IO (1019)-13 98-2; 29 zevval Io18. i6I2 (I021)-I5 207-I; 23 Receb
1020. I615 (1024)-17 II2-2; 5 Rebi I 1023. 1617 (o026)-Karaman I 72-I; o1
$evval 1026. 1619 (IO28)-20 241-I; 20 Rebi II I027. I620 (o029)-20 190-I; 15
Zilkade 1027. 1624 (I033)-24 93-1; 24 Receb 1032. I624 (I033)-24 94-I; 9 Zil-
hicce 1032. I625 (1034)-25 io6-I; 13 Receb 1033.
A few instancesof simple conversion of zimmis to Islam are recorded

in the sicils. Registering the conversion at the court must have been
required, for it was essential to transferthe convert's name fromthe
list of zimmi tax payers to that of Muslims. A formal change of name
usually was involved, the convert abandoning his name (not infre-
quently a Turkish name, in fact) and assuming a suitable Muslim
name 29). No public ceremonies or demonstrations are mentioned in
regard to the few conversions recorded, nor are there mentioned any
cash gifts, jobs, or amnesties, such as have sometimes been found
connected with conversions in the Muslim world.
The instances of conversion recorded are so few that, despite the
good reasons for considering registration at the court a mandatory
part of conversion, it may not have been so. Otherwise conversion
was uncommon in Kayseri 30).
Kurd Beg: This Hagik has become a Muslim. I have given him the name Mahmud.
Two witnesses confirm this. Mahmud is registered as a Muslim. [i3 9-2; i6
Zilkade i o 8]
29) Those two points are made for i8th century Cyprus by Vergi H. Bedevi,
p. 150 ff., in "A survey of the Cyprus Sher'i Court registers", in the proceedings
of the First International
Congressof CypriotStudies,April, I969, published by Turk
Kiiltiiriinii Arastirma Enstitiisi, Ankara, I97I. An excellent study of the general
implications of the conversion of Greek Orthodox Christiansin Anatolia is found
in the chapter"Conversionto Islam", pp. 351-402, in Vryonis, Decline... Numerous
bibliographical references are given.
30) See Vryonis's general treatment of the subject. Of 579,345 Christian hane
in 1490 living in twenty-six livas of Rumeli eyalet, encompassing most Ottoman
territory south of the Danube, only 255 (.04 %!) converted to Islam in the course
of the following year, according to an official cizye defter studied by Omer Liitfi
Barkan, p. i if., esp. the table on p. 12. "894 (1488/1489) ylll Cizyesinin Tahsilatlna
ait Muhasebe Bilanolari", BelgelerI (I964). Bedevi counted only 114 Christian
converts to Islam on Cyprusin the half century between 1786 and I854, p. 150 f. On
the basis of the frequency of "ibn Abdullah" in census records (tapudefterleri)So-
kolski has pointed out that conversion in several Macedoniancities was rare before
the I520o', when it became widespread. E.g., in Skopya (Uskub) only 3 of 666
Muslims were converts, but in 1528, I82 of 775 Muslims were converts (1/4), and
in I545, 357 of II15 (1/3). Metodi Sokolski, "Le Developpement de quelques
Villes dans le Sud des Balkans au XVe et XVIe siecles", BalcanicaI (i970) 8i-
io6, passim. The term "ibn Abdullah" is not uncommon in the Kayseri judicial
registers in question, which leads to a dilemma, unless most men designated that
way are members of the military class who were "recruited"outside of Kayseri.
I6
242 R. C. JENNINGS
MustafaDede bn Gazi and Abdul-Vehhab qelebi bn Seydi Ahmed: Serkis v. Huda

Virdi has left vain religion and become a Muslim. He is given the name Ali.
Recorded in the presence of his mother Tamam. [19 z22-; I3 Rebi II i026]
Abdul-Vehhab bn Gulabi and Ali bn Huseyn: Ayan v. Ugurlu has turned from
vain religion to the religion of Muhammad. He has fasted during Ramazan
(oruc)for two years. Three years ago he became a Muslim. [I9 23-4; 14 Rebi
II I026]
When zimmi Ayan came to Islam previously, with the testimony of Muslims, he
was given the name Hasan. [19 25-I; 19 Rebi II i026]
Dede Bali v. Allah Virdi of Endirlik village has come to Islam. He has the name
Veli. [i9 23-5; i6 Rebi II o026]
Muradcame to court: I have left vain religion and accepted the religion of Muham-
mad. I have taken the name Ali. [20 30-2; 28 Rebi II 1027]
Arslan v. (omitted) of Haci Hamdullah Sufi zade mahalle in Amasya tk: Yesterday
before the Muslims Arslan became a Muslim. Yes, I left vain religion and came
to the true religion. [Amasya I 40-3; 20 Zilkade 1034]
Two instances occured of conversion from one faith to another

within the zimmi community. These were very formally registered,
although there would seem no bureaucraticnecessity for doing so.
Passage from one of these communitiesto the other was undoubtedly
less frequent even than conversion to Islam. The two cases recorded
involved women, undoubtedlyto simplifyan extra-communalmarriage.
?ehruz v. Sefer of Talas, an Armenian (Ermeni) has Sinan v. Ohan and Hafator v.
Omur attest that he has made Abraham v. Sefer his vekil for the matter tk
Meryem bint Begler (?) of Talas, a Greek (Rum), has as her vekil her guardian
[and father, apparently]Begler v. Arslan: Meryem, who has reached the age of
discretion, has left the Greek religion (Rum dini) and accepts the Armenian
religion (Ermeni din). Abraham says that she has been married (nikah)to his
brother Sehruz for three years and they are delaying excessively in giving her
to him. This is denied. Then Misr Kesis v. Andon and Sahin v. Bali attest that
the girl indeed is of age, has changed religion, and has been marriedfor three
years. [i3 i8-8; 22 Zilkade ioi8]
Turfande bint Ovanis has Yovan v. Kara Kel (?) [Kin? Gul?] as her vekil tk: Up
until now my muvekkile has belonged to the Armenian religion (Ermeni dini).
Now she enters and accepts the Greek religion (Rum dini). Registered at court
at the request of the Greek community (Rum taifesi). [I5 18-2; selh Rebi II
o109]
Some of the problems of converting from Christianityto Islam can

be seen in the five following cases, which relate to the conversion of
zimmi Murad:
Muradcame to court: I have left vain religion and accepted the religion of Muham-
mad. I have taken the namme Ali. [20 30-2; 28 Rebi II 1027]
Ali bn Abdullah, who became a Muslim ik Nazli bint Kirkor: When I came to Islam
I was not living with Nazli (tindegane).She renounces claim to various conjugal
dues (mehr,nafaka'-i'iddet,and other Zevciyyet) and also renounces claim to 50
gurus and goods in return for my pronouncing hul' and divorcing her. I break
all our connections. She accepts this. [20 3I-3; I Cumadi I Ioz7]
Ali bn Abdullah, who just became a Muslim, the seller ik Arslan v. Dede: I of 3
shares (sehm)of a house at Dukkancikler Onu, next to Arzuman v. Deve,
Habes, and on two sides, a road, is sold for 4000 akce. [20 54-2; 5 Cumadi II
1027]
Ali bn Abdullah, who just became a Muslim, the seller ik his mother Kiymet bint
Yagobseh: A vineyard at Merkeb Meydani, next to Murad, (?), Hizir (?), and
Kulak, sold for 3500 akce. [20 56-I; io Cumadi II I027]
Nazli bint Kirkor, former wife of Ali bn Abdullah who previously came to Islam
tk Arslan v. Dede: I was Ali's wife. When he became a Muslim I did not. I
have married again. Since Ali is going to another place, I want our young
daughter (?) to be left with my paternaluncle ('amm)Arslan. Arslan adds that
he has a fetva that Ali cannot leave the girl with his mother. Zeyd divorced his
wife Hind three times. When Zeyd goes to another vilayet, can he leave their
daughter Zeyneb with his mother Meryem? The answer: No. So the daughter
remains in Nazli's custody. [20 96-I; 2 Ramazan I027]
As the above cases illustrate, a convert might well cut himself off
completely from all his home and family ties. In Ali's case, there was
divorce, separationfrom his daughter, selling of his lands, and leaving
his community.
Mehmed bn Abdullah ik his brother Mardiros:I give my brothermy canonicalshare
of inheritancefrom our father (?), including buildings and property. [14 9-5;
22 Rebi II Ioi6]
Mustafa Bese bn Abdullah ik his brothers Yovan and Simiyon v. Hizir: I sell my
canonical share of inheritance from my late father for 40 akce. [I4 10-7; 9
CumadiI ioi6]
Bali Base bn Bayram of desvirmeogullari,who has become a Muslim, seller ik (?),
Mihail, and Yuseb, brothers of Bali from Vekse village: Bali sells his share of a
vineyard and a house with the knowledge of the spahi for 500 akce. [24 24-I;
24 Receb 1032]
Nevertheless, converts (ibn Abdullah) commonly associated with

one another and with zimmis. There is no evidence that their conver-
sions were anything but genuine; a man raised as a zimmi understand-
ably might have more in common with zimmis than with native-born
Muslims, even after his conversion.
244 R. C. JENNINGS
The question of the acceptance of converts by born Muslims has

been raised. One or two cases suggest the possibility of tensions be-
tween converts and born Muslims, although in fact they may as well
represent tensions between the military class and the subject class.
Really I do not have adequate information even to begin to determine
if there was a problem.
JanissaryYusuf Basa bn Abdullah tk Haci Mehmed bn Murad:He blocked my way
at Buyuk ;esme, and he cursed me, calling me an infidel (kafir). Two witnesses
confirm Yusuf. [20 I04-4; 6 Sevval I027]
Former janissary serdar of Kayseri Suleyman Beg bn Abdullah tk Seyyid Abdul-
Aziz bn Emir Ahmed: He called me infidel (kafir), swine (hin.ir), apostate
(murtedd),and panderer (gidi). I cannot accept this. Denied by Abdul-Aziz,
but Suleymen's claim is confirmed by two Muslim witnesses, Ahmed Beg bn
Abdullah and Mehmed Beg bn Davud. [II 55-306; 29 Rebi I IoI5]
One of the main problems brought to court by Muslim converts

was how to secure effective control of their inheritances from their
relatives. Hanafi law did not allow Muslims to inherit from zimmis,
or vice versa 31); however, a Muslim convert who had inherited as a
zimmi could keep control, after his conversion, of property he already
had inherited.
Hizir Bese: When my father died, I was not yet a Muslim and so a share which he
bequeathedme went to my brother Kuguk. I want it now. [12 39-8; II Cumadi
I Ioi5]
Mustafabn Abdullah ik his brother Arzumanv. Suh (?): My father Suh died before
I came to Islam. I received I5 gurus from Arzuman in exchange for my in-
herited share of the property. I have no claim against Arzuman's brothers
Murad, Bahsi, and Tanri Virdi, his mother, or the other heirs. [I5 I52-2; 2I
Rebi II o020]
Veli, for himself and as vasi for his brother Mehmed ik Minnet v. Sah Bali: We
inherited a vineyard at Moli village from our father Yovan before we came to
Islam. Our mother Cihan sold it illegally (fuZul) to Minnet. Now I am of age
(balig).I cannot accept the sale. The vineyard is in Minnet's possession. Minnet
3I) Goitein indicates that this was a serious problem in Fatimid Cairo. "But
the Christians and Jews had to fight to preserve the right to have their cases of
inheritance treated according to their own law and before their own courts."
A Mediterranean Society,v. II, p. 394. Unless one was ready to fight, the government
often seized a part of the inheritance. p. 394 ff. For the position of Islamic law,
see Fattal, Le Statut des Non-musulmans, p. 355. Abu Hanifa, Sarakhsi, and other
Hanafi jurists are cited.
says that, although they inherited the vineyard from their father Yovan, he
bought it from Cihan two years earlier for 6 gurus. The court finds that the
mother sold it illegally, that the sale was not valid, and that the vineyard should
be returned.[I5 174-2; 9 Receb i02o]
Suleyman Pasa bn Abdullah td Hamze Beg: A threshing ground (harman eri) at
Moli village is disputed. Hamze says he bought it from Mehmed, Suleyman's
father, for 9 esedi gurus 25 years earlier, before he had become a Muslim. But
Hamze has no witnesses, and he is unable to produce any after delays of three
and six days. [24 63-I; 26 Sevval I032]
Altun bint Abdullah of Kara Kecilu mahalle ik Kirkor v. Yasef of the mahalle: He
disputes my claim to shares of a house in the mahalle which I inherited from
my brother Murad,who became a Muslim in Kayseri and then died in 'Ayntab.
Sulh for I3 esedi gurus and 206 akce, which Altun has recieved in full. [25
48-5; 5 Rebi II 1034]
Saban bn Abdullah of Agirnas village tk Bagvand and Gulabi v. (?) of the same
village: Before I cameto Islam my fatherAziz (?) died and I inheriteda vineyard
at the village; but they have occupied it. The two claim that they bought the
vineyard for 5 gurus from (?) v. (?): we know nothing about this other claim.
Saban has no proof; an oath is requested from the two zimmis, which they
give. [25 7I-4; 24 Cumadi I 1034]
Mehmed Beg bn Abdullah of Nizye village ik Arutyun v. (?): I inherited a house
and a garden at the village from my father Tatar before I came to Islam. When
I claimed it from Arutyun, sulh was arrangedfor 15 gurus, which I have re-
ceived in full. [27 50-2; 3 Sevval 1035]
Saban bn Abdullah of Harput mahalle ik Nevruz v. Serkis: I want my share of
buildings and property at (?) nahiye that I inherited from my father (?), my
brother Ugurlu, and my mother Turfande before I came to Islam. I want it
from Nevruz. With the mediation of the muslihun,sulh was made for 15 esedi
gurus and 5 kaftan. [27 90-3; i8 Zilkade 1035]
Two cases seem to indicate attempts to force or coerce individual
zimmis to become Muslims.
Zimmi Sefer tk Koruci Ali Beg of Konya: He seized me by force at the time of
Ferhad Pasa's campaign. Ali Beg says Sefer became a Muslim, stayed with
him for awhile, and then fled with several of his possessions, so he seized him.
However, Omer Beg bn Abdullah and Ali Bese bn Abdullah confirm Sefer.
[15 44-6; 9 CumadiII o019]
Babacik of Erkilat village: In o016my mother Ayse accepted Islam and became a
Muslim. I was 15 years old and of age at that time. Some people want to force
me and to make a circumcision (sunnet).Let the Muslims be asked about this.
Musa Beg and other a'yansinformed the court that Babacikwas 5 years old and
of age when his mother Ayse accepted Islam. He cannot be forced to Islam.
[I5 95-5; 14 Sevval IoI9]
At least in the two instanceswhere zimmis came to court with com-
plaints that Muslims were coercing them, the sharia court seems to
246 R. C. JENNINGS
have provided a refuge and the Muslim community seems to have

provided witnesses to project the zimmi.
A case from the court of Trabzon suggests that at least in some in-
stances courts were very cautious in dealing with converts.
Mehmed bn Abdullah, convert of Ayo Girgor mahalle: When I became a Muslim
my daughter Sultana, a zimmi, was 25 years old. When she was invited to become
a Muslim, she did not. When she was married (nikahlanmak) to zimmi Yuri,
the metropolitan (medrepolid) refused to marry her according to their rites
kefere ayinleri). According to the sharia it is necessary for him to marry them.
Let her be asked. The Muslims named below went to Sultana's house and asked
her about this. She confirmed her father's story and agreed to take an oath.
Then the court ordered that, in accordance with the sharia, she must be married.
[Trabzon 42/1821, 38-2]
MONEY LENDING, CREDIT, AND ZIMMIS
It has been shown in detail elsewhere that, contraryto the modern

stereotypeof Muslim passivitytowards, or even moral scrupleconcern-
ing credit and interest, I7th century Kayseri Muslims sufferedneither
from reticence in such endeavors nor from doubts about their legiti-
macy. A study of 1400 judicial cases involving loans and other credit
between 60ooand i627 suggests thatthe Muslimswere the active group,
the zimmis the more passive: of instances of loans and credit 82%
originated with Muslims, and only 18% with zimmis. While 17.6%
(247) of the instances of credit were inter-communal,80% (I99) of
those were extended from Muslims to zimmis and only 20% (48)
from zimmis to Muslims 32).
The above figures suggest that the Muslims of Kayseri were more
at home with credit than the zimmis were, although there is no evi-
dence that the zimmis were oppressed by debt. Perhaps the zimmis
were economically the more conservative community, for it is shown
below that through the same period when the Muslims showed such
vigor as creditors and lenders the zimmis were accumulating land
and buildings--particularly land-from the Muslims.
32) R. Jennings, "Loans and credit in early 7th century Ottoman judicial records,
the Sharia court of Anatolian Kayseri",JESHO i6 (1973) 168-2I6, esp. section IV,
"Muslims and zimmis", pp. 180-183, and table p. 2I5.
The fact that almost one out of five instances of loans and credit
recorded in the sicils (I7.6%) were inter-communalindicated a sub-
stantialinteractionbetween Muslimsand the non-Muslimcommunities.
It also suggests that religion or millet was a less important factor in
credit dealings than generally has been assumed. Consequently, eco-
nomic factors, and perhaps other social factors, such as proximity and
personal honesty, must be considered potentially more significant
than they have been formerly 33).
PROPERTY
The sicils of Kayseri were land and property registration books.

They do not list owners by district or by any other systematicmethod
which would allow mapping out exactly what property was held by
zimmis. However, the sicils were used to registerchangesin the owner-
ship of buildings and property when they occurred, and those entries
are intermixed with the daily entries representing other business of
the court.
I765 land and property transferswere examined,almost all of them
in the province of Kayseri. Of these 29% (5 2) belonged to zimmis
at the time they were sold (31% of the properties, 28% of the build-
ings), although only 22% of the population of the city of Kayseri
were zimmis in I583. Of all transfersat least one zimmi was involved
in 41% (718), 46% of property and 36% of building. These figures
suggest both that registeringchange of ownershipwas a legal necessity
and that zimmis held a substantialamount of the property in the city
and province34).[See Tables V & VI.]
The intermixtureof zimmis with Muslims is emphasizedby the fact
that 17% (308) of the transferswere across the lines of the two reli-
gious communities.That figure includes 22% of the propertytransfers
33) Cf. Goitein on Fatimid Egypt for what seems to be a similar situation. Medi-
terraneanSociety,v. I, pp. 262, 256 ff.; v. II, pp. 292, 295. Vryonis emphasizes
the capacity of Turkish Muslims to make use of the sources of wealth in Anatolia
to enrich their religious institutions. Decline..., passim.
34) Abstractly, it would seem that the zimmis might feel a little less secure in
the law and so a stronger impetus to registerpropertytransfersthan Muslimswould.
248 R. C. JENNINGS
and 14% of the building transfers. That means that I74 parcels of
land and I34 residentialand other buildings had owners of different
religions than formerly, while the owners of neighboring plots and
homes remained the same. Muslims did not move out when a zimmi
moved into their neighborhood, nor vice versa. If living and culti-
vating were not already considerablymixed to start with-and there
is considerable evidence that they already were-a strong current of
intermixture was underway by the I620's.
Muslims sold more to zimmis than zimmis to Muslims. Only 5%
of building transfersand 6% of property transferswent from zimmi
to Muslim, 6% (o02) of the overall total. In contrast, 9% of building
transfers and 15% of all property transfers-an average of 12% (206)
-were sold by Muslims to zimmis.
Consequently, zimmis accumulatedproperty and buildings, while
Muslim holdings declined. Of 1765 cases, zimmis owned 29% (512)
at the start, and Muslims owned 71% (1253). After the sales were
completed, zimmis owned 35% (6I6) and Muslims 65% (II49), a net
gain of over Ioo units (i.e., 20%) for the zimmis; Muslim units de-
creased8%.
In particularzimmis accumulatedproperty at a faster rate. Of 809
parcels of property, Muslims originally held 69% (56I) and zimmis
3I% (248). After the transfers were completed, the Muslims owned
only 61% (49I), while the zimmis had increased their holdings to 39%
(318), a 28% increase in zimmi holdings while Muslim holdings were
dropping 12%.
The Muslims experienceda net loss of buildings, too. Holding 72%
(692) of 956 buildings initially, the Muslim total decreased to 69%
(658). Meanwhile, the zimmis, who originally held only 28% of the
buildings (264), ended up with 3 % (298). The number of buildings
held by zimmis increased I3% as those held by Muslims decreased 5%.
It is not possible to conjecturewhether the acquisition of property
by zimmis from Muslims was a long term trend or short term one,
but the situation prevailedin every sicil that was studied. It is difficult
to conjecturethe effects of such a trend over a long term. What kind
of psychology is involved when a zimmi minority accumulates a

growing proportion of the landed and immovable property while
the Muslim majority provides the capitalists and lenders, who give
out to zimmis 4 times as many loans and other credits as they borrow?
Did timar and evkaf revenues give the Muslims an advantage?Why
were the zimmis acquiringland particularly,or why were the Muslims
pointedly selling land? Unfortunately I have not kept track of the
relativevalue of the various holdings, for the cash value of the holdings
may give quite a differentpoint of view from mere numbers of sales.
Finally, to whom were these property and building transfersuseful?
Were the buyers or sellers profiting more? Or both in differentways?
In particular,was there any benefit to the zimmi community in the
growing acquisitionof these holdings?
A separate study of land and property transfersinvolving women
reveals that, while women generally tended to sell more frequently
than buy (presumablydisposing of inheritances),this tendency was
considerably more pronounced among Muslim women than among
zimmi women. For example, women sold land 2.9 times as frequently
as they bought it (170 to 59); for Muslim women alone the frequency
was 3.1 (I22 to 35), while for zimmi women it was 2.4 (48 to 20).
Women sold buildings 3.I times as frequently as they bought them
(232/76)-Muslim women 3.5 times as frequently (x75/50), zimmi
women 2.2 times (57/26). Overall, Muslim women sold land and
buildings 3.3 times as frequently as they bought them and zimmi
women 2.3 times as frequently.Of land and building transfersinvolving
women, 28% (15I of 537) involved at least one zimmi woman35).
Probably the frequency of sale is connected with selling inherited
partial shares. At any rate, a zimmi woman who got possession of
some land or property was slightly less likely to sell it than was a
Muslim woman.
29% of the 1765 lands and buildings put up for sale belonged to
35) R. Jennings, "Women in early I7th century Ottoman judicial revords-

the Sharia court of Anatolian Kayseri",JESHO I8 (1975) 99 ff., esp. Table II a
and b.
250 R. C. JENNINGS
zimmis prior to their sale. After the sales were completed, 35% of
them belonged to zimmis. The proportion of buildings rose from
28% to 31% while that of lands rose from 31% to 39%. It would be
naive to presume on the basis of this evidence that 30% or 35% of
lands and houses actually belonged to zimmis, or that an irreversible
long term trend was underway. Moreover, nothing has been learned
about relative land and building values; this study deals strictly with
quantities. Possibly Muslims were less inclined to deal in these prop-
erties; possibly the period 6oo00-625was in some way atypical.Never-
theless, it must be acknowledged that zimmis behaved vigorously
on the real estate market and accumulated considerable properties
during the period in question.
COURTPROCEDURES
I. Use of the Shariacourt

2. Defense against Chargesby Muslims
3. Zimmi Claimsagainst Muslims
4. Zimmis and the Testimony of Witnesses
5. Oaths by Zimmis
6. Zimmis and the Fetva
7. Zimmis as suhud ul-hal
8. Petitions to the Porte
9. Claims of Zimmis against Spahis and Janissaries
io. Zimmis vs. Zimmis
1.
I Zimmis as Kefil
12. Zimmis and Islamic Family Law
3. Zimmi Evkaf
i. Use of the Sharia court
20% of over IO,500 cases examined involved at least one zimmi,

and 1% of those cases involved zimmis exclusively. Nevertheless,
in 1583 the zimmi minority made up only 22% of the city population,
and at least io% of the total cases involved official and semi-official
administrativebusiness of the empire or local community, in which
matters zimmis rarely were involved. [See Table VIII.]
Certain apparent trends involving the participationof the zimmis
in the Kayseri court should be examined:
ZIMMIS IN OTTOMAN RECORDS 25 I
a. increase in the percentage of zimmis using the court. In sicils

11-77 (I603-I614), at least one zimmi was involved in I6% of cases,
but in sicils 20-27 (I616-I627) the figure was 25%.
b. increase in the percentage of cases involving zimmis only. In
the earlierdecade those were 8.6% of all cases, while in the latter the
percentageaveraged 15%.
c. of cases in which at least one zimmi was involved, the percentage
involving only zimmis increased from 54% to 59%. I.e., intra-com-
munal use of the court by zimmis was increasing.
d. slight increase in the percentage of mixed cases initiated by
Muslims, from 28% to 30%. That probably does not represent a signifi-
cant change.
e. very slight decreasein the percentageof mixed cases which were
initiated by zimmis against Muslims: 2.888% down to 2.767%.
A more noticeabledecline occurredin the percentageof cases initiated

by zimmis against Muslims: i8% of all cases involving at least one
zimmi, down to 11% (but this decline seems merely to indicate that
intra-communal use of the court by zimmis was increasing while
inter-communaluse was remaining stable).
Although zimmis used the sharia court of Kayseri frequently in
i6oo, their participation increased considerably in the following
quartercentury, particularlyin intra-communalcases. Since use of the
court by zimmis was voluntary in all but a few matters, or when they
were summoned by Muslims, their deliberate use seems to express
their confidence in the court, that it will be helpful, that it can serve
their needs, and that it will be just 36). That conclusion was drawn as
well from the frequent use of the court made by women 37). Exactly
36) Uriel Heyd, Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law. ed. V. L. Menage. Oxford
I973. "The Ottoman courts of law tried all subjects of the Sultan, including the
non-Muslims, and Christian and Jewish religious dignitaries had only very limited
jurisdiction in penal matters involving members of their communities. Thus the
Greek Orthodox patriarchs and metropolitans were authorized to arrest violators
of their religious law and to inflict on them certain penalties (exclusion from religious
services, refusal of religious burial, excommunication)," p. 222.
37) R. Jennings "Women...", p. iIo f.; also Table I, p. 6o.
252 R. C. JENNINGS
why zimmi use of the court increasedso, however, cannot be answered.

The increasing use of the court by zimmis generally parallels the
increasing use of the court made by women: one woman in 17% of
cases overall, but increasing from 11% in the first period to 25% in
the second. In most sicils the higher the frequencywith which women
used the court the higher the frequency with which zimmis used it.
Although one might like to hypothesize a general trend of opening
and liberalizingthe court, the increase in use of the court by women
was accompaniedby an increasing use of vekils on their part (from
21% to 43%)-that is, a smaller percentage of women litigants were
going to court in person.
The proportion of zimmi women among all women using the court
(27%) was notably higher than the proportion of zimmis using the
court overall (20%). Oddly enough, the proportion of zimmi women
to all women decreased from 31%/ to 240, because of a very consider-
able increasein use of the court by Muslim women in the later period.
Zimmi women used vekils less frequently than Muslim women (23%
versus 37%), but the proportion of zimmi women using vekils in-
creased about as fast that of the Muslim women (I5?% versus 24% in
the earlier period, 30% versus 47% in the latter).
It is not evident what local circumstancesthese changes and develop-
ments reflect.
2. DefenseagainstChargesbyMuslims
Zimmis not only had the right, they had the obligation to respond
to charges made by Muslims. They had the right to reply fully, giving
their own version of the dispute even if they lacked proof to supportit.
Mehmed Beg bn Haci Mustafa tk Vartan Kesis: My father, before his death, gave
Vartan wool and silks worth 2 , 600 akce. Vartan denies that he had any debt
to Mustafa, although he took over zimmi Sinan's 0ooaltun debt to Mehmed
Beg: His father never sold me any wool or silk. However, two Muslim wit-
nesses testify that Vartan does owe z , 600 akce for wool and silk, and their
testimony is accepted. [II 54-30I; 23 Rebi I O15]i
Mehmed Beg: Vartan Kesis owed my father 2I,600 akce, of which I have only
been able to collect 5000; I want the rest to be paid to Ibrahim Aga, who is
in Ankara. Vartan: I owed 15,000 akce, of which I paid 5ooo; and I gave Ibra-
him Beg a letter of credit (havale)for io,ooo akce worth of wheat. Two Muslim
witnesses confirm Vartan's testimony. [I2 3 -8; 5 Rebi II IOI5]
Abdul-Aziz of the tekyecorroboratesboluk basi Mahmud Beg in claiming that the
two drunken zimmis attacked and wounded zimmi (?) with a knife; but when
the latterappearedin court it was seen that he bore no wounds, so the testimony
was a lie. [12 7-9; 9 Sefer Io]5
Huseyn Beg bn Hasan Beg davaBunyad v. Kel Fan (?): He illegally farmed my
field at Kara Meshed. Bunyad says he bought it from Penbeci :elebi. [13 7-6;
13 Zilkade Ioi8]
Yakub bn Haci Aus iddiaDostum v. Karaca of Germir village: Dostum owes me
6 gurus. I want it. Dostum claims that he took one kile barley (arpa) for 2
gurus but had repaid it. [1 35-5; Zilhicce IoI8]
Spahi Abdi Beg bn Abdullah davaAy Togdi v. Nikol and his sisters (?) and Sultan
of Tosakci (?) Harmanimahalle: The house at the mahalle, next to (?), Ahmed
Beg, Erkilatli Suruc, and Kirakos, was my father's house, but the accused are
living there. Ay Togdi and his sisters assert that their father bought the house
from Abdi's father 30 or 40 years earlier. We inherited it, and moreover our
father has been dead for over 5 years. Abdi claims that he wanted to take pos-
session of the house by pre-emption, but according to kanun pre-emption is
not permissible after so long a time. Abdi's claim is restrained. [I5 30-2; 22
Cumadi I o109]
Seyyid Muharrem(Celebibn Seyyid Iskender (Celebihas as vekil for the matter his
brother Seyyid Saban (?elebi tk Devlet v. (?): Devlet owes my muvekkil 80
gurus, which I want. Devlet admits only a debt of 36 gurus, saying let Muharrem
give an accounting of the rest. [I5 115-3; 25 Zilkade o019]
Ali: Zimmi Kara Koc wounded me on the hand with a knife. Kara Koc replied
that Ali struck him first. When he was asked for proof, he had none. When an
oath was proposed, he declined (nukul).When proof was asked from the zimmi,
he had none; when an oath was proposed, he confessed striking him with a
fist. [I9 55-2; 26 Muharrem 1027]
Mustafa Beg bn Abdullah tk (?) v. Toros: Previously at Uskudar I gave him I5
gurus. I want it. The zimmi denies this. Mustafa is given 3 days to produce
witnesses, but after 7 days he still does not re-appear.[20 40-2; o1 Cumadi I
1027]
Ahmed bn Sabanfrom the castle tk Yovan, zimmi from Agirnas village: My father
gave him Io5 gurus. Now I have inherited the claim. Yovan took 90 gurus
for i year with 60 gurus interest (faide). Yovan claims that he has repaid all,
and he is confirmedby Ahmed Beg bn Abdullah and Sinan Beg bn Ahmed Beg.
[20 141-I; 26 Muharrem o028]
Bosnak Mehmed Aga, who is heir of the murdered spahi Sefer Halife, has as vekil
for the matter Eyub Beg bn Mehmed Beg tk from Der Siyak village, Ismail
Beg, Saban Beg bn Iskender, Ali Beg bn Nasuh Beg, Kirakos v. Imir Beg,
Bunyad v. (?), Bunyad v. Kostendil [Kostandin?], Arslan v. (?) Beg, Yovan
v. (?), Yovan v. Sefer, and Yovan v. Bayram: When Katib Yusuf was asked
about Sefer Halife coming to his house, Yusuf said that Sefer had not come to
the village to collect barley (due to the aga). Let the villagers be asked about
this matter. The villagers all say that Sefer did not come to the village, that
254 R. C. JENNINGS
they did not see him, and that they know nothing of the matter. It is requested
that they take oaths to this effect, individually, and they do so. [25 58-2; I
Cumadi I 1034]
Abdi bn Ahmed of Kayseri castle tk Murad v. Yagob: I gave the zimmi goods
worth 25 gurus. Murad says that he took only I8 gurus worth of cloth for the
principal (asl) and interest (ribh). Abdi is asked for proof, but he has none.
When Murad is asked for proof, the testimony of Yusuf bn Hamze, reported
by Seydi Ahmed bn Yusuf and Musa Bali bn Saban, and of Mustafa bn (?),
reported by Hamze bn Sevindik and Ahmed bn Hamze, confirms Murad's
testimony. [27 80-3; 4 Zilkade 1035]
Mehmed Celebi bn Omer Efendi, formerly of Haci (?) mahalle and now of Brusa,
has as vekil for the matter Huseyn Pasa bn Mustafa tk and tm Barak v. (?),
zimmi of Isbarta: The zimmi owes by muvekkilIooo akce from a loan (karz)
Barak says: Yes, I took Iooo akce karz-i ser'i and kept it a few years. Then I
paid Iooo akce in principal (asl-i mal) and 50ooakce in interest (mu'amele-i(?) ),
a total of 50ooakce. At that time Mehmed acknowledged this in the presence
of Muslims. Ali Beg bn Abdullah and Cafer bn Huseyn of the free Muslims
(ahrar-imuslimin)confirm this. [Isbarta 2 41-2; Sevval oI08]
All disputes with zimmis were supposed to be settled in court,

according to the procedures of the sharia. Zimmis who resisted the
authority of the state and of Islam still could expect the due process
of law.
Hasan Beg, kapucibasi of Maras beglerbegi Mehmed Pasa, came to court: While
coming from Develu, zimmi Alti Parmakof Tomarza invited me to his home.
When we entered the village the people would not receive us but blocked our
way and called me a celali. They shot one of my horses with an arrow. Let the
muhzir summon them to court with mursele.Muhzir Pervane was sent to sum-
mon them to court, but they refused to come. [I5 38-7; 5 Cumadi II 11o9]
Spahi Haci Ferhad Beg bn Haci Cafer td Ugurlu v. (?): Ugurli cursed me (setm),
saying I fuck your father's ass and you. Ugurli admits this. [I5 120-3; 6 Zil-
hicce 1019]
Ramazan Halife, imam of Isbitin village tk Hacet and Hanis of Efkere village:
I encountered Toros Kesis (priest) of Efkere village and Tavid Kesis of Venek
village. They blocked my path and seized hold of my donkey. They cursed my
religion (din, iman). I have a claim only against the aforementioned priests,
not against Hacet, Hanis, or any others of their village. (20 I I -4; selh Sevval
1027]
Ramazan Halife bn Hasan Halife, imam of Isbitin village ik (?), zimmi, vekil for
Toros Kesis and Davud Merhasa: I made a claim (dava) that Toros Kesis
and Davud Merhasacursed my religion. But, since I have no witnesses, I have
renounced my claim. [20 i2I-5; 29 Zilkade 1027]
Cuma (avus bn Dundar, who possesses Zincir Dere village tk Malkoc v. Kostin
(?), (?) v. Mihail and Mihail v. Gul Beg of the village: Last year when the
imperial order came for the Tebriz campaign and I went to the village to col-
lect taxes due me from the village (mahsul,rusum),they resisted. Finally they
decided to push me into the water channel of the mill. Malkoc pulled my beard
and struck me on the head with his fist. The others threw rocks, pulled my
beard, and struck me hard blows. I cried out and Muslims came to my rescue.
The zimmis denied this, but Huseyn bn Veli and Imir bn Ali of (?) confirmed
Cuma's story. [20 I29-3; 29 Zilkade I027]
Gazi beg, spahi of Orta Koy tk Nevroz v. Serkis: He is a reaya of my village and
must pay the taxes (rusum)incumbent upon him. Nevroz replies that he has
lived in $ehre Gusti mahallefor 22 yearsand paid taxes with its people. Mehmed
bn Sefer and Ali bn Abdullah confirm Nevroz. Gazi is restrained.[20 I36-2;
5 Muharrem1o28]
Spahi Eyub (elebi has as vekil Huseyn Beg td Yasef v. Iskender: He came against
Eyub's house with 2 or 3 bandits (sekban).Two witnesses ('udul-imuslimun),
Abdul-Gani bn Kasim and Yusuf bn Mehmed, confirm the spahi's claim.
[22 5-3; I6 $evval I030]
Bahram bn Huseyn Pasa: Yagob v. Murad cursed my religion (din, iman). [22 22I-3;
2 Zilhicce 1030]
Kidami (?) Beg, mutesellimof the pasha tk from Germurvillage, (?) Kethuda, Makbul
Kesis (priest), Yovan, Kor Dede Bali, Ahi (?) Hakki, Kutlu Beg, and others:
Previously the village people injured Imam Kulu bn Hoca in three places. With
the mediation of upright people (muslihun),a compromise (sulh) was arranged
for 4000 akce. (22 7I-6; 22 CumadiII 1031]
Ismail bn Mehmed Beg of Nizye village ik Murad, son of Demirci Iskender of the
village: I made a claim (dava)that Murad deflowered my young daughter, but
I have renounced my claim because I have no witnesses. I declare the zimmi
free from blame. Murad accepts this. [27 82-6; 7 Zilkade 1035] [Cf. 25 7-2,
used elsewhere.]
3. Zimmi Claims againstMuslims
Zimmis made all the same kinds of claims against Muslims that
Muslims themselves made against one another. Primarilythese areas
include control of land and property as well as what in western legal
parlanceis considered "criminal"law. Of course, Muslims won some
of these cases and lost others.
Gulbeg (?) v. Vartan of Zincir Dere davaYusuf bn Sefer: Yusuf took my ox. Yusuf
denies this but then admits having sold it to Abdullah. [II 4-2I; 8 Muharrem
1014]
Gulabi bint Kaya, zimmia of Erkilat village davaMahmud bn Veli of Gebe Ilyas
mahalle: My animals (ox, donkey) lost at Kamisli Gol (lake) near Elma Dag
mountain) have now appearedin the possession of Mahmud. Mahmud claims
that he bought them a month ago. However, a number of Muslim witnesses
confirm the claim of the woman. [Ii 16-102; 5 Sefer II14]
256 R. C. JENNINGS
Bulbul v. Minnet ik Lutfullah bn Bali: A donkey is restored to Bulbul after Lut-

fullah fails to produce witnesses of his ownership within three days. [I 48-281;
9 Sefer 1015]
Nersis v. Ugurli: Hasan bn Abdul-Kadir took two cauldrons (kaygan) from my
shop. I found them in his possession. Hasan admits, yes, I was covetous. [12
iI4-9; 9 Sefer IoI7]
Murad:The vineyardI inheritedfrom my fatherAgob has been occupied by Mahmud
Beg. [i2 198-14; 6 Muharrem Ioi8]
Sefer v. Tarafyil (?) of Talas village dava Piyale bn Abdullah: Piyale attacked me
and wounded me with a knife. [13 63-I; 28 Muharrem o119]
Murad v. Burnaz (?) of Ulu Berengoz village tk Ibrahim bn Murad of Gergeme
village: One of Korkud ogli's men captured my son Suh (?) and my brother
Horsun (?). To secure their release I sent a mule, a purple tolma, a turban
(dulbend),and a yellow sash (kusak) to Ibrahim, but Ibrahim merely kept them.
Ibrahim admits having received them from Murad but claims that the
brigands (levendtaifesi) took them from him. Written at the request of mir liva
kethuda Zagarci Ali Beg. [I3 66-4; 5 Sefer o119]
Sefer v. Yorbaz of Ulu Berengoz village ik Ibrahim bn Murad: When I claimed
certain goods he has, a compromise (sulh) was reached with the mediation of
upright people (muslihun). I have received 20 gurus. [I3 71-2; Io Sefer o109]
Bogos v. Sefer ik Minnet bn Sinan: He struck me several times when he found me
spending the night in his vineyard. If I die from these blows, I have no claim
against Minnet. [I4 34-6; 12 Muharrem IoI6]
Gul Ana bint Ugurlu, zimmia of Bektas mahalle ik Isa bn Mehmed: My husband
Kutlu Seh v. Iskender sold one of my vineyards without my permission. I
want it back from Isa. Kutlu Seh admits having given Gul Ana the vineyard
as dowry (mehr) and then having sold it illegally (fuZulen) to Isa. So the vineyard
is ordered restored to Gul Ana. [15 31-3; 24 Cumadi I o109]
Melek, Sofya, and Sultan, daughters of zimmi Kara Beg of Talas village tk Haci
Huseyn bn Mehmed from the imperial bevvab:In dispute are 2 of seven shares
(hisse) of fields, gardens, and a house, and 2 vineyards inherited from their late
father. Haci Huseyn has them in his possession but he should give them to
us. Haci Huseyn claims that he bought the fields 5 years earlier from their
brother Mihal. However, he has no witnesses and so he is restrained. The prop-
erty then goes to the sisters. [I 5 35- ; 29 Cumadi I 10 9. Cf. 15 76-5; 25 Saban
1019]
Kurd Beg brought his servant (hidmetkar) Sefer v. Hacik to court: While Sefer was
bringing provisions to the vineyard, Ahmed shot him in the back with an
arrow. [15 42-3; 9 Cumadi II ioI9]
Kurd Beg's servant Sefer v. Hacik ik before a Muslim and several zimmis: Ahmed
wounded me in the back with an arrow. If I die, he is my murderer. I have no
claim against the people mentioned above. [15 42-4; 9 Cumadi II ioi9]
Zimmi Mihail of Ulu Berengoz village tk Osman Bese: He has usurped my field.
Osman insists he bought the field from Mihail's wife. Osman has no proof,
however, so he is restrained from having possession. [I5 I80-5; 9 Saban Io20]
Zimmi (?) tk Sefer Bese: Sefer ruined my vineyard and stole the grapes there. Con-
firmed by Seyfullah bn Haci Sadi and Haci Sevindik bn Haci Yusuf. [I5 186-5;
selh Saban xo20]
Zimmi Nikol of Gergeme village tk Sefer Bese: Sefer broke into my house. Con-
firmed by Sinan bn Receb alay begi and Yusuf Bese bn Abdullah. [ 5 I87-I;
selh Saban io2o]
Zimmi Kara Bende tk Kaleli Emir Ali: He hit me on the head with a stick (degnek)
and hurt me. Ali denies that he was at fault, claiming provocation. [20 IIo-2;
24 Sevval I027]
Seferbn Abdullahand KaraGoz v. TanriVirdi ik: We fought and struckone another
but we have no claim against one another. [25 50-4; io Rebi II 1034]
(?) bint Gunduz, zimmia of Germir village ik Melik Seh, Kirkor, Karli, Yenice,
Haci (?) v. Yigit Basi, and others of the village: While I was drawing water
at the well, Yusuf bn Abdullah, servant of spahi Haci Ahmed Beg, struck me
with a knife (bicak). If I die, he is my murderer. [25 64-2; I3 Cumadi I o034]
Sunbul v. Imir Serkis of Germir village: My brother Gunduz's daughter (?) of our
village was attacked and wounded by Yusuf, servant (hidmetkar)of spahi Haci
Ahmed. Let her be examined. From the court the claimants, Hamze Beg from
the mir liva, and those whose names are listed below investigated: she was
wounded with a knife as stated. [25 64-3; 13 Cumadi I 1034]
The aforementionedSunbul of Germir village tk the aforementionedYusuf, servant
of Haci Ahmed Beg: [A formal charge is made.] She is still bedridden. He
should be subjected to the sharia. Yusuf says that he struck her because she
struck him on the head with a rope by the well. [25 64-4; Cumadi I 1034]
Kostantin v. Lufet (?), priest (rahib)td qalabi bn Huseyn of the Turkman tribe
(taife):I gave Yahya bn Bayram314 sheep for pasturing and (;alabiwas guaran-
tor (kefil). I have received only 75 sheep, and Yahya has fled. I want the re-
maining 244 sheep from (;alabi. The latter denies that he has kefil, and the
priest has no proof at hand; he is granted a three day delay, but after three days
he still has no proof. This is recorded. [Trabzon 42/1821, 8b-6; 24 Sefer 1029]
Ovanis, priest (rahib),who is the Armenian metropolitan (Ermeniyanmedrepolid)
td Hasan bn Abdullah of (?) village, brought by process server (mubasir)Huseyn
q(avus: Hasan struck my ox. It may die. Let him be questioned. Hasan claims
the ox entered his field. [Trabzon 42/1821, 20-4; i6 Rebi II o029]
4. ZimmisandtheTestimony
of Witnesses
One of the most severe legal disadvantages of zimmis was their
inabilityunderany circumstancesto testifyas witnessesagainstMuslims.
That does not mean, of course, that zimmis were unable to testify as
witnesses at the shariacourt of Kayseri. Zimmi witnesses were allowed
to testify againstany other zimmis; they frequently did so in cases to
which both partieswere zimmisand even occasionallywhen the accuser
was a Muslim. Muslims, on the other hand, testified frequently as
witnesses both for and against zimmis; in both cases a noticeable
proportion of them seem to have been converts (ibn Abdullah). Prob-
258 R. C. JENNINGS
ably it was standardpracticefor zimmis, knowing their disadvantage,

to try to secure Muslim witnesses to their disputes with Muslims.
At any rate, it is to be rememberedthat the limitation restrictedthe
zimmi from testifying for others, but he could always make his own
complaintsto the court against Muslims.
i. a. Zimmis testify on behalf of other zimmis
Gul Eser (?) bint Arutyun, zimmia td Mikal (?) bint Agca, vasi of the orphans of
the late Ohan v. Bogos: The deceased owed me 60 gurus. I want it from his
effects. Bagvand Kethuda v. Kucuk and Serkis v. Valaci (?) confirm Gul Eser.
[I7 66-2; 15 Rebi I 1023]
Nikol v. (?) and Bali v. Kaya Bali testify that Anasdas owed Bali v. Kaya Bali 7
gurus but then had made sulh for 6 gurus. [I9 62-9; io Sefer I027].
Murad Beg and Suh (?) v. Tursun testify that Hatun gave Anasdsas i gurus. [19
62-I0; 10 Sefer 1027]
Turfende bint (?) of Agirnas village davaBavlos Kesis (priest) of Uskubi village:
My husband Nuri (?) died. The priest took possession of my vineyard while I
was in Istanbul. The priest claims to have bought the vineyard i 2 years earlier
from Nuri for 3 gurus. Mihail v. (?) and Urail v. Nevruz confirm the priest.
[20 44-4; I8 Cumadi I 1027]
Kara Koc v. Kaysar tk Nazli bint Bagadasar: My paternal uncle ('amm)Kirakos
died. Nazli will not let me take possession of the house that I inherited at
Sehir Gusti mahalle next to Ihtiyar, Kara Oglan, Minnet, and Bazergan. She
maintainsthat she inherited half of the house from her father. Hacik v. Bulbul
and Timur v. Hacik testify that half of the house belongs to each disputant.
[20 6I-4; 28 Cumadi II 1027]
Aritun v. Serkis: I want the late Bagadasar's36 ak altun from this Bunyadv. Ovanis.
His claim is confirmed by Aritun v. Dervis and Ugurlu v. Sahek. [22 I8-5;
20 Zilkade 1030]
Nar (?) Hatun bint Seyf (?), zimmia tk Erakil, zimmi: In place of 60 gurus dowry
(mehr),my late husband Agob gave me a vineyard at Hasan Tagi (mountain)
next to (?), Sefer, Nikol, and the road, but Erakilprevents my taking possession.
Erakil claims that he has no knowledge of such circumstances. However,
Musli bn Bayram and Ala Goz v. (?) confirm the woman's claim. [20 i8-2;
21 Rebi I I027. In this case and the following one, one witness is a Muslim and
the other a zimmi.]
Zimmi Tatar of Yalman mahalletd his son 'Ayan: I sold him a house at the mahalle
for 120 gurus; he still owes me 20 gurus. Ayan claims that he has paid all. He
is confirmed by Suleyman Beg bn Abdullah and Bagadasarv. Ohan. [24 29-1;
5 Saban 1032]
(?) bint Anasdas, wife of the late Hizir (?) v. (?) of Bektas mahalle tk Kizil Bas,
Kaya Bali, and Murad, sons of the deceased, and his daughter Yasik (?): My
husband gave me a tabhanein the mahalle as a gift. Now they will not let me
occupy it. They claim that they know nothing of such a gift. Ali Beg bn Ab-
dullah and Mukaddes Bagvand v. Kucuk confirm Yasik's claim. [25 63-5;
Ii Cumadi I I034]
b. On behalf of Muslims
(?), zimmia: While my father was away, this Mehmed Beg unlawfully occupied his
vineyard. Now my father is dead. I want the vineyard. Mehmed says that her
father owed him 17,000 akce, for which he demands several vineyards. Serkis
Kesis (priest) and 'Arabseh (?) v. Bozuk confirm Mehmed's document. [12
162-I4; ii Zilkade 1017]
Kumri v. Kesis (priest) tk Ali Beg bn Abdullah: I sold Ali a mule for 20 gurus. I
want the money. Ali says that he paid the debt in kind, and Coban b. Yuseb
and Gulabi v. Kaysar confirm Ali's claim. [13 22-8; i Zilhicce IoI8]
Zimmi Murad of Dar Siyak village tk Mustafa: Mustafa has taken over a vineyard
that I inherited from my father. Mustafa claims to have bought the vineyard
from Murad'sfather Hizir (?) 13 yearsearlierfor 9 gurus. Huda Virdi bn Ahmed
and Arzumanv. Altun confirm Mustafa'sclaim, and their testimony is accepted.
[I5 I65-3; 6 Cumadi II Iozo]
Zimmi Yagmur of Gesi village tk Ali bn Abdullah: Ali usurped my vineyard at
the village 3 years ago. Ali asserts that Yagmur sold him the vineyard for 81/2
gurus. Inci (?) v. Kuzi and Mihail v. (?) confirm Ali's claim. [i5 188-4; i Rama-
zan 1ozo]
2. Muslims testify on behalf of zimmis

Murad v. Seh (?) tk Murad bn Abdullah: Murad blocked my way and attacked me
with a knife, claiming I owed him money. They took 30 gurus from my breast
and tied my hand and foot, saying that I took the money from Muslims. Two
Muslims testified that the accused had lied, that they had seen the knife attack,
and that they had untied Murad's bonds. [z2 41-II; 20 Cumadi I IoI5]
Simiyon: Mehmed struck my brother Yovan with his fist and he struck me in the
back with a knife. He robbed my 8 kirmizi altun and other things. Mehmed
denies this, but Sinan Cavus and Mahmud Beg bn Mehmed confirm Simiyon's
claim. [I2 50-9; 7 CumadiII o 5]
Sefer v. Ala Goz: Huseyn bn Veli has my 9 gurus. Confirmed by two Muslim
witnesses. [I3 68-3; 7 Sefer 1919]
Sirin v. Bahsi of Erkilat village tm mir liva kethuda Receb Aga: I am from that
village but I have lived in the city for 25 years. Receb Aga threatensme, saying
move to the village. Receb says that Sirin has not been in the city that long.
However, Mevlana Beser Halife bn Mercan and Haci Mustafa bn Semsed-din
confirm Sirin's claim. So Receb is restrained.[17 9-2; 8 Sevval 1022]
Musli Beg bn Dede Beg tk Dede v. (?): My father gave the zimmi a donkey worth
Iooo akce. I want the money. The zimmi claims that he paid the father. Musli
has no witnesses but reassertshis father's claim. Iskender bn Abdullah and Ali
bn Iskender confirm zimmi Dede. [20 13-2; i8 Rebi I I027]
Musli bn Abdullah tk Hizir (?) v. (?): Hizir has taken possession of a house that I
inherited from my late father near Sultan Agli village, next to Bunyad, (?), and
the above Hizir. Hizir claims that this father sold it to him; Ali Base bn Ab-
dullah and Abdul-Gaffar bn Sevinduk confirm Hizir. [20 o15-2; 7 Sevval 1027]
Ahmed Beg and Ali bn Hizir testify that Bagvand is good to the poor (fukara). [22
23-7; 4 Zilhicce 1030]
z6o R. C. JENNINGS
Zimmi Tatar of Yalman mahalletd his son 'Ayan: I sold him a house at the mahalle
for 120 gurus; he still owes me 20 gurus. Ayan says that he has paid all. He is
confirmed by Suleyman Beg bn Abdullah and Bagadasarv. Ohan. [24 29-I;
5 Saban I032] [Cf. II I6-I02; I2 3I-8; I3 73-3; I5 I86-5, 187-I; 20 18-2, 32-1,
96-4, I02-3, 136-I2, and 141-I, all of which occur elsewhere in the text.]
(?) Kesis (priest) v. Vasil of Veksi village dava Mahmud bn Veli of Gebe Ilyas ma-
halle: After the late Ali bn Abdullah died 28 years ago, I took the land to tapu
for I200 akce. Now Mustafa claims to have been appointed vekil of the land
by Pir Saban and he prevents me from occupying the land. Seyfullah, Sufi bn
Ali, and Mehmed confirm that the priest really has held the land for 29 years.
[I I5-x; 24 Muharrem II04]
5. Oaths by .Zimmis
Like Muslims, zimmis were allowed to take oaths of innocence when
faced with charges which the accuser could not prove. The oath of
innocence formally absolved the accused of any guilt. Although cer-
tain Muslim legists required Christians to take oaths in churches
according to a special formula, no such practice is mentioned in the
sicils used 38).
Musa bn Mustafa of Orta Koy (village) ik zimmi Kesis ogli Kirkor: Formerly I
bought three buffalos from him for three gurus. The zimmi maintains that he
received only 72 akce of the 3 gurus and so 12 akce is still owed him. Musa
has no witnesses of his payment, so he asks the zimmi to take an oath, which
he does. [II 20-I36; 5 Sefer 1014]
Kutli v. (?) of Efkere village takes an oath (yemin) before (?) bn Sultan Hoca of
(irkalan village: I did not receive rent from you. [13 49-3; 9 Muharrem o109]
Halil bn Mehmed tk Bogos v. (?): My father gave his father io ak altun. I want it.
Since Halil has no proof, however, Bogos is allowed to take an oath (yemin
billah) that he had no knowledge of such a debt of his father's. [I 9-6; I7 Rebi
I 1019]
Ibrahim bn Hasan Beg td (?) Kesis v. Andon of Talas village: The priest was kefil
bil-mal (guarantor for the money) for a 20 gurus loan (karz) of his brother's
son Sefer v. Serkis. Now I want the money. The priest denies this. Proof is
demanded from Ibrahim, who acknowledges that he has none. So the priest
takes an oath (yemin) that he was not kefil bil-mal for the loan of Ibrahim to
Sefer. Ibrahim's claim is rejected. [I7 4-I; 25 Ramazan 1025]
Cuma (avus, kaym makam of present Kayseri sancak begi Seyyid Kasim Beg tk
from Muncusun village, Menan Kethuda, Arzuman Kethuda, Huda Virdi
Kethuda, Sayeci, and Yagob: Some merchants (bazergan) came to their village
38) In Hanef law the oath of zimmis is permissable as proof except against Mus-
lims, Fattal, p. 365. A fetva of Ebussuud opines that, when an oath is given to a
zimmi according to the sharia, it is given to God who sent the Gospel to Jesus,
Diizdag, p. 9 I, # 38 .
ZIMMIS IN OTTOMAN RECORDS 26i
and, for fear of Abaza [a celali], were not able to go on to another village. After
his defeat, the men from the village killed the merchants. Cuma 5avus has no
proof, so the zimmis are asked for an oath. They swear that they know nothing
about the matter. [25 7-2; 19 Muharrem 1034]
Mahmud tk Ohan v. (?) of (?) village of Develi: I sold him a water buffalo for 15
gurus but he only paid 'osmani[another coin]. Ohan claims that he took 72
osmani but returned them all. Mahmud has no proof, so Ohan takes an oath.
[27 108-3; 27 Zilhicce I035]
Ibrahim bn Abdullah tk Nikol v. Bali: He owes me 800 akce from a loan (karz)
and another 200 akce for goods, a total of iooo akce. Nikol denies the debt.
Ibrahim has no proof, so Nikol takes an oath that he has no such debt. [27
III-I; 2 Muharrem o036]
Mehmed bn Mustafa(elebi of Dere (?) mahalleik Yani v. Manuel, zimmi: I placed
a musket (tufenk)in the home of the aforementionedzimmi. When I tried to
get it back, he said it was lost. After investigation, the aforementionedzimmi
asserted that he had not seen the musket. When proof (beyyine)was requested,
Mehmed could produce none, but he requested that the zimmi be asked to
take an oath (yemin).After the zimmi took an oath that he had not seen Mehmed
place the musket in his house, what happened was registered. [Isbarta2 28-4;
Ramazan IoI8. Cf. Kayseri 25 58-2; I Cumadi I 1034. 27 49-4; 28 Ramazan
I035]
Osman Celebi, mutevelliof the place of public prayerat Kuyumciler9arsu(the bazaar
of the goldsmiths) tm (?) and Ovanis v. Sultanseh:I heard that they owe money
to the vakf established by the late Kuyumci Abdullah. The zimmis deny this.
Osman has no proof. When he proposed an oath, the zimmis took one. [Ama-
sya i 50-2; III Zilkade 1035]
6. Zimmisandthefetva
In Kayseri zimmis sought fetvas (legal opinions of muftis) and used
them in court in the same way as Muslims. The stereotype forms of
Zeyd and 'Amr were sometimes used in these fetvas; other times,
zimmi names such as Agob and Yagob were used; and in a few in-
stances the identifying term "zimmi" actually was used. Apparently
it reallymade no differenceto the mufti what the religion of the person
seeking the fetva so long as no question of religious law was involved
where the distinction was essential. Zimmis used fetvas in instances
where they were in contention with Muslims as well as in contention
with other zimmis 39).
39) Dizdag lists 115 fetvas of Ebussuud relating to zimmis (gayri-Muslimler),

pp. 89-107, nos. 357-471. See the important study of M. Grignaschi, "La Valeur
du Temoinage des Sujets non-Musulmans (dhimmi) dans l'Empire Ottoman",
La Preuve. Part III of Civilisations archaiques, asiatiques et islamiques. Recueils
262 R. C. JENNINGS
Zimmi Zeyd died leaving orphans for whom 'Amr was vasi. He gave zimmi Bekr
money which he never repaid. Now the vasi is dead and the orphans are 30
and they have never yet made a claim. Canthey make a claim against Bekr now?
No! not after so long a time has elapsed. [25 1I7-5]
Zeyd rents vakf lands to zimmi Agob as they have been rented to him before being
made vakf. He rented it for 1/4 or 1/5 of the harvest. After a few years Zeyd
wants to rent the lands to someone else. Can he do so? Yes, after three years
he can rent vakf land to another person. [27 II9-5]
If zimmi Agob has a wedding to which zimmi Yagob came with an invitation, and
if after Yagob leaves someone attacks him and kills him, is Agob responsible
for blood money (dem ve diyet)? No. [25 120-2]
Yovan and Murad, zimmis td: Malkoc Beg dug an abhaneat the foot of our wall,
doing injury to us. We have a fetva that this should be stopped. Let this be
investigated. I (Mevlana Alaeddin Efendi), the Muslims whose names are listed
below, and chief architext (mimar basi) Dede Beg were sent to the place in con-
tention to inspect it. In truth, what Malkoc has dug does do injury to Yovan
and Murad. According to their fetva. if Zeyd does 'Amr harm by digging a
well at the foot of his wall (as confirmed by experts (ehl-i hibre)), can 'Amr
have Zeyd's digging stopped? Yes. So Malkog is prevented from further dig-
ging. [13 8-4; 14 Zilkade Io 8]
Gul Eser bint Bagadasar, zimmia tk: My husband Ibrahim Basa bn Abdullah left
me without maintenance (nafaka ve kisve); he went away 16 years ago and has
not returned. He said in front of Muslims that if he stayed in Istanbul 6 years
he divorced me three times. Also I have a fetva. Mustafa Basa bn Abdullah of
Vekse village and Ali Basa bn Mustafa of Efkere village confirm the woman's
claim. Fetva: if Zeyd left his wife to be divorced after a specified time, may
Hind marry another person? Yes. [20 56-4; o0 Cumadi II Io27]
Tamam bint Yardim tk Murad v. Arutyun: I want my share of the 3000 akce's worth
de la SocieteJean Bodin I8 (I963) 211-323. He is more pessimistic than I am about
the socio-legal position of zimmis. He considers the recurrence of problems in the
fetvas of six muftis over a century and a half to be an indication that zimmis con-
tinually found their "rights" challenged as the same confrontations were continually
recurring. However, fetvas may indicate only single isolated cases. Nothing may
be concluded except that at long intervals at least one case occurred regarding
similar aspects of the same legal issue. Heyd has shown that the general problems
dealt with by muftis are repeated over the long term, and that many of them seem
quite trivial, so it may fairly be suggested that the fetvas involving zimmis which
Grignaschi has studied are consistent with the broader scope of fetvas. Further-
more, no evidence has ever been put forth correlating the practice of law courts
with the "theoretical" opinions of muftis. U. Heyd, "Some Aspects of the Otto-
man Fetva", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 32 (1969) 35-56. "It
is rather astonishing that fetvas of such distinguished Shaykh al-Islams as Abu'l-
Su'ud and Sa'd al-Din had to be confirmed by their successors and that even the
conformity of one of these fetvas with the religious law was questioned. Could the
reason be that a fetva had greater practical value if it was issued by the Shaykh
al-Islam of the day?", p. 44. Latel he declares that there are many Ottoman fetvas
on "very simple legal questions" whose answers are "obvious", p. 54.
of goods that Murad has from my late husband Arutyun. Murad says that his
late father gave her a gift (hibe)of 300o akce's worth of goods for mehr-imu'eccel
before he died. I have a fetva that she cannot claim a share of his goods. Kara
Goz v. Hizir (?) and Ha9ator v. Balil confirm Murad's claim. Let the fetva be
examined .. .The court accepts the fetva, and Tamam's claim is rejected.
[25 2-3; 9 Muharrem 1034]
Emine bint Mehmed has Ibrahim Halife bn Alaeddin as vekil for the matter tk
Hoca Bali v. Andreyas of Gergeme village: Dispute over a half share of the
mill at the village. Hoca says that he, his father, and his grandfatherhave held
it for over 50 years. I have a fetva that an imperial order (emr-iserif) has for-
bidden the hearing of claims (dacva)after so much time has elapsed. So Ibrahim
is restrained. [25 8-2; 20 Muharrem 1034]
Markosv. Panos of Kafir Oren (?) village of Develu kaza tk Sefer v. Karacaof the
same village: Sefer's daughter was married (nikah)to me 12 years [months?]
ago. Now he delays in giving her to me. Sefer replies: Although I made my
daughter engaged (namzad)to Markos on I5 Saban i026, it is incorrect to call
this marriage. I have a fetva that this claim is not valid. [20 25-3; c.zI Rebi
II 1027] [20 250-2, 20 282-2, and 25 109-3 are cited elsewhere. Cf. also 17 6i-2;
12 Rebi II 1032. 25 49-3; 7 Rebi II 1034. 25 56-2; III Rebi II 1036. Amasya
i 68-I; III Cumadi II 1035.]
7. Zimmisas suhudul-hal
Cases, even non-contested ones, could not be considered valid
without being witnessed by a number of men besides the kadi40). In
virtually every case where any Muslim was involved, the suhud-ul-hal
were Muslims. However, for non-contested cases occuring within the
zimmi community, one or more-even all--suhud ul-hal might be
zimmis.
Zimmi suhudul-hal were almost never allowed except in non-con-
tested cases both parties to which were zimmis. For example, when a
zimmi sold land or propertyto anotherzimmi, some of the suhudul-hal
usuallywere zimmis-a few, most, or even all 41). When a disagreement
between zimmis over the existenceor amount of a debt or over owner-
ship of some land or property was settled (often, but not always in-
dicated by the term sulh, reconciliation, compromise), a few, most,
40) The most recent study on the subject is C1.Cahen, "A propos des Shuhud",
StudiaIslamica31 (I970) 71-79. Cf. Emile Tyan, Histoiredel'OrganisationJudiciaire
en
Pays d'Islam,Leiden, 960, p. 361 f.
41) Of this there are of course hundreds of examples. Cf. 27 3-I; 14 Receb I035.
27 4-2; 14 Receb 1035. 27 5-3; 17 Receb 1035. 27 8-4; 23 Receb 1035. 27 16-2; II
Saban I035.
264 R. C. JENNINGS
or even all the suhudul-halwere usually zimmis42). Similarly,when an

estate was settled43), when a vekil was appointed44), when a daily
allowance (nafaka)was set for a widow or orphan45), if all parties to
the case were zimmis, a few, most, or even all the suhudul-haloften
were zimmis. When zimmis established a vakf46), agreed to a hul'
divorce 47), or collected or paid their cizye or other taxes48), one or
more of the suhudul-halmight be zimmis. Not all such cases had even
a single zimmi suhudul-hal,and the principles-if indeed there were
any-which determined how many zimmis would be suhudu/-hal
for a non-contested case involving only zimmis are obscure.
There were a few isolated exceptionsto the generalrule statedabove.
What if any significance they had is uncertain. When Saye bint Ulu
Beg, a zimmia, made Muslim Mustafa Bese her vekil to arrange her
marriageto another zimmi, two of the suhudul-hal,Imir v. Bogos and
Zekeriyab. Boyaci, were zimmis49). When zimmis Kel Baba and Bende
v. Karamanacknowledgedtheir debt of 40 gurus to TalasliAli Beg bn
Abdullah and placed certain property as security, zimmis Arslan v.
Ine Beg and Rum Beg v. Dugunci were among the suhudul-hal50).
When Io zimmis from Germir village acknowledged a debt of io
gurus each to Seyyid Ahmed (elebi and agreed to be guarantor(kefil
bil-mal)for one another,Tatarv. Muradwas among the suhudul-hal51).
When spahi Eyub (elebi's vekil Huseyn Beg set forth a claim (takrir-i
dava)against Yasef v. Iskender as a bandit (sekban),zimmi Kalenderv.
42) 22 38-6; 9 Muharrem 1031. 25 95-4; 29 Cumadi II I034. 27 40-3; i8 Ramazan

I035. 27 22-2; 17 Saban 1035. 25 I02-5; 9 Receb 1034.
43) 23 i-6; 6 Ramazan I032. 23 60-3; 23 Ramazan 1033. 24 42-3; I Ramazan
1032. 25 99-I; 2 Receb 1034.
44) 20 I63-5; 25 Rebi I I028. 27 6o-I; i2 Sevval 1035.
45) 22 45-9; II Rebi I Io3I. 23 48-6; i6 Muharrem I033. 24 54-2; 4 Sevval
I032. 27 87-I; I3 Zilkade 1035.
46) 20 I77-2; 14 Rebi II o028. 23 I9-7; 4 Sevval 1032.
47) 23 4-Io; 20 Saban 1032.
48) 23 i6-ii; 2I Ramazan 1032. 24 68-4; 2 Zilkade 1032. 20 72-I; i6 Receb I027.
49) I 41-242; 22 Muharrem 1015.
50) 13 7-5; I2 Zilkade IoI8.
5I) I5 9-8; I7 Rebi I 1oI9.
(?) was one of the suhudu/-hal52).When zimmi Tatar set forth a claim
(takrir-idava)against his son Ayan regardingan unpaid debt, Anderik
v. Ha5ik, Agasab (?) v. Agob, and Dervis v. Simavun were among
the suhudul-hal53). When Cuma (avus, kaym makamof the Kayseri
sancak begi, set forth a claim (takrir-ikelam)of murderingsome mer-
chants against a number of zimmis from Muncusun village, one of
the suhudul-halwas MukaddesBagvand, kethuda of the zimmis54).
8. Petitionsto thePorte
Zimmis exercised the same right as Muslims to petition the Porte,
individually and collectively, for redress of grievances. This was a
fundamentalright of Ottoman subjects and zimmis regularly availed
themselves of the opportunity55).Although texts of the original peti-
tions are not preserved, they are summarizedin firmans included in
the sicils.
i. To Kayserikadi: A zimminamedSirincameto me. He was trying to collect
a loanfromanotherzimminamedAlti Parmakof Tomarzavillageandthe latter
disputedhis claim.Why has the matternot beensettled.sinceit waspreviously
broughtbeforethe court?He hasa huccet.Sinanqavuswill be overseer(mubasir)
of the matter.Lookinto this rightaway.I do not wantto hearanymorecom-
plaints. [I 87-450; III CumadiI oI 5]
To Kayserikadi,know thatthe zimmibrothersYagmurand YovanBaliand the
sister Gulistansent a petition (arzuhal)to my Porte: When our fatherK
Babadied and the estatewas being settled,our brotherHaci Beg placedth
house as security(rehn)with Mustafa.Mustafathen sold the house to Rusen.
We want our shares.We have a fetva. I orderthat: Whenmy imperialorder
(emr)arrives,investigate.If the matterhas not alreadybeen judged,and if
I5 yearshave not passed,examinetheirfetva.Do not do injusticeto anyone.
I do not want to hearany more complaintson this matter. [20 282-2; II Ramazan
1027, from Konstantiniye]
To Kayserikadi, know that zimmi Ovanissent a petitionto my Porte: When I
wantedto build a house on the land I owned, Sabaninterferedunlawfully,
claimingit was to the windwardside of the threshingplace (harmnn).
I said,
52) 22 5-3; I6 Sevval I030.

53) 24 29-I; 5 Saban I032.
54) 25 7-2; I9 Muharrem 1034.
55) Cf. Heyd, Studies..., p. 227. "This traditionalimage of the ruler as the
redressorof wrongs was maintained,and every subject,Muslimand non-Muslim,
could submita petitionto the Sultan."Or to the grandvizier'sdivan,p. 226.
266 R. C. JENNINGS
I have a fetva in this regard, let him be restrained.I order that: you should
bring the disputants together. If the matter has not already been decided in
accordancewith the sharia,and if 15 yearshave not passed, look into the matter.
If the matter is as stated, carry out the sharia,fulfilling my imperial order and
the fetva. Do not let this person violate the sharia. I do not want to hear of
this matter again. [25 109-3; III Zilkade 1033, Konstantiniye]
2. Imperial order (emr) concerning the cizye (harac)of the zimmis.
To Kayseri kadi and to Kayseri sancak begi, know that the zimmis of Kayseri kaza
sent a man to the Porte. They made known that they paid their cizye to the
collectors according to the imperial order and the defter. Now the collectors
want to violate the imperialorder and the defter by collecting again from those
who do not have receipts (temessuk).They are using force. Besides that, they
are taking food, sheep, grain, honey, and butter by force, and there is no end
to their abuses. If this burdenis not lifted from us, we will all become dispersed.
I order that: See if this complaint is valid. If it is, put a stop to these abuses.
[I5 280-2; II Ramazan IOI9, from Konstantiniye]
To Kayseri kadi, know that the zimmis of Kayseri kaza sent a man to my Porte:
(avuses, kapucis,and others from the outside come and seize our homes, take
food from us by force, and do us great harm. We want an imperialorder (emr-i
serif) to stop this. I order that: While these people are at hans and caravanserais
they should not interfere with the people or commit these abuses. [17 90-I;
I Sevval 1023]
To Kayseri kadi, know that the people (halk) of Muncusun village made a petition
to my Porte: Our present spahi Hasan :avus came upon us with 15 or 20
mounted men, took over our houses where we have families, and demanded
grain and fodder for free. They always do this sort of thing. We want an im-
perial order (emr)against them. I order that: Grant them justice. If their com-
plaint is valid, it is against my wishes that any injustice be done them. Stop that
Favus. He should not occupy their houses with his men nor take anything for
nothing from the reaya.Anything he takes he must pay for at the currentmarket
price (narhcari). He should not continue in this way. You should not permit
it. [20 2o00-; III Receb I027]
A number of these petitions were directed from members of the

Christian religious hierarchies, either in their own interest or the
interest of their communities. In most cases these petitions were con-
cerned with abuses and violations of the law but a few represented
the need and dependenceof the hierarchieson the police power of the
imperialgovernment.
To Kayseri kadi, to Kayseri sancakbeg, to kadis of Nigde, Develi, Bor, Kara Hisar,
Urgub, and Haci Bektas, know that (?), the monk (rahib) who is metropolitan
of the infidels of Kayseri presented a petition: The sancak begi's men, su basis,
Zuama,erbab-itimar,and others who collect the annual taxes of the infidels due
to the metropolitanatehave committed abuses. The ehl-i 'urf and others inter-
ZIMMIS IN OTTOMANRECORDS 267
fere, seducing sons and offering loans to the poor. They marrypriests without
without my knowledge, and they demand the use of my horses and mules while
imperial servants (kapi kullari)are collecting these dues. They demand money
from those who have not been in a place six months. I order that: If the situa-
tion is as the monk said, you should stop it, and you should allow no injury
to the monk or his men. You should not marry priests without the monk's
knowledge, and you should punish anyone who does so. If the effects of de-
ceased monks are worth less than 5ooo akce, they should go to the aforemention-
ed monk for the patriarch(patrik), but if they are greater, you should seize
them for the imperialtreasury(miri).No one should take horses or mules from
the monk for collecting taxes. Generally speaking, you should keep things as
they have been in the past. [I3 0o3-2; ii Rebi I IoI8]
To Kayseri kadi, know that the Armenian priests (Ermenipapaslar)in your kaza
sent a man to my Porte: Formerly we paid our taxes (hukukve rusum)every
year to our patriarch, according to the custom of our religion (din), and no
one interfered. Now those who collect cizye do us harm by demanding that
we pay it a second time. We have a fetva concerning this. We want an imperial
order that this oppression is contrary to tradition and kanun, and no one who
has a receipt of payment from his patriarchshould be required to pay cizye a
second time. I order that: You should act in accordance with my imperial
order and with the fetva. [20 250-2; 6 Zilhicce I026, Konstantiniye]
Anderik v. Tanri Virdi, another Anderik v. Hacik, Bogos v. Kirkor, Hacik v. Kara
Goz, Anderik v. Yal Viran (?), and (?) v. Sahin tk Barsamav. Hanis: Barsama
owes us extraordinarytaxes (tekalif)which he will not pay. We want this money.
Barsamaclaims to be a resident of Yalman mahalle and to pay tekalif there. I
have an imperialorder that they should not do me injury in this matter. Indeed
the firman ordered the people of the village not to do Barsamaharm in this
matter, so they are restrained. [25 I6-3; 15 Sefer 1034]
To Kara Hisar Develu kadi, know that the monk (rahib)Lazaroz of Arda Suk (?)
village of your kaza came to the Porte and made a petition: All the reayain the
village are Muslims, so the monks are the only non-Muslims; in the past the
monks have paid taxes (rusum-iraiyyet)to the spahis and gone about their
business free from oppression. Now one of the men from the castle has been
oppressing us. I want an imperial order that he should obey the customs of
the past. I order that: You should see that justice is done in this matter. You
should not allow spahis or their sons to oppress reaya and you should uphold
the old traditions. [25 I30-3; I Cumadi II 103I, Konstantiniye]
To (place omitted) sancak begi and to (?) and (place omitted) kadis, know that
Peremtos (Paremno?), monk (rahib)who is bishop (piskopos)of the infidels
of the lands, sent a petition to my Porte: When I was collecting the revenues of
the annualmirirusum,the tasaddukakce, and the marriages(nikah),fairs(panayir),
and monasteries (monastir)of the infidels subject to my bishopric (piskoposluk),
the voyvodasand su basisof the sancakbegi, the holders of ziamets and of timars,
and others did me harm contrary to the sharia. The voyvodas and su basis and
other ehl-i'urfexceed their authority. They corrupt our children. They wrongly
claim that they have given us loans (karz). When, according to custom, I want
to collect the effects of deceasedpriests, the kethudaand men of the sancakbegi
and other ehl-i 'urf interfere and seize their effects. They interfere with my
268 R. C. JENNINGS
appointing and dismissing papases and kesises. They make kara papases marry
without my consent. When collecting rusum they and other imperial servants
(kapi kullari) seize my horses and mules for courier service. They demandyave
harci from people who have not been in a place six months. They oppress me
greatly, so I want an imperial order in this regard. I order that: See if the situa-
tion is as the aforementioned monk described. If it is, stop the abuses; you
should not allow anyone to oppress that monk or his men. You should not
allow priests (kara papaslar) to marry without the consent of the aforementioned
monk. If they make evasions (taallul), you should punish them in accordance
with the sharia. Do not let anyone besides that monk interfere with their mar-
riages. Not you nor any of your imperial servants (kapi kullari) should con-
fiscate their horses or mules as couriers. You should not take yave harci from
those who have not been in a place for six months. [25 I43-I; 23 Ramazan 03 I,
Konstantinye]
To Kayseri Kadi, know that Vartan, a monk (rahib) from near Tomarza village,
made a petition to my Porte: According to both old and new defters, 300 akce
used to be collected from the monastery. Now the monks Sari ogli Mardiros
and Efkerelu Davud, who were appointed to collect the aforementioned amount,
do not collect in accordance with imperial order (emr) and the defter. They
take more and they bring oppression. I want an imperial order requiring them
to return the excessive money that they have collected. I order that: See that
justice is done, if 5 years have not passed. When the defter registers 300 akce,
it is not permissible to take more. No one should be allowed to violate the
sharia or kanun. If you confirm that they have taken money in excess of the
defter, see that it is returned immediately. [20 198-I; II Ramazan I026]
To kadis of places in Anatoli, know that the monk (rahib) Ovanis, who is patriarch
(batrik) of the Armenians (Ermeni keferesi), sent a petition to my Porte: From
the time of the Conquest until now, on the accession (culus) of a sultan, merhasas,
papases, and kesises have customarily paid taxes (rusum) to the imperial treasury
(miri), according to their ability to pay. Now two imperial accessions have
occurred, and I have had to pay two "gifts" (peskes). I want an imperial order
concerning their helping with the tax in accordance with the old kanun. I
order that: When my slave Ismail and janissary Gedikli Yusuf arrive with my
order, see that this tax is collected immediately from all merhasas,papases, and
kesises, according to their ability to pay. Without delay take possession of the
money for the aforementioned monk. At the same time, let no sancak begi,
voyvodasu basi, Zu'ama, erbab-i timar, janissary, or other ehl-i 'urf interfere. [20
212-I; 27 (month omitted) I027, Konstantiniye]
To Kayseri sancak begi, and to Kayseri kadi, know that Ovanis, the Armenian
patriarch with an imperial berat, sent a man to my Porte, 88 flori are wanted
from those in this kava who are part of his patriarchate (batriklik). Zimmi
Divan is appointed vekil for this matter. I order that: When my slaves Yusuf
and Ismail arrive, the money should be collected in full as soon as possible.
[20 212-2; I027, Konstantiniye]
9. Claimsof Zimmisagainstspahisandjanissaries
Spahis and janissariessometimes treated zimmis arrogantly,partic-

ularly spahis when dealing with villagers on their timars. Muslim vil-
lagers may have been treated no better. At any rate, zimmis had, and
made use of, the right to summon spahisand janissariesto court for as-
sault, robbery, extortion, and other abuses. Often the appeal is to
sharia.
Pervane v. Karli of Germir village dava Mahmud Basa, janissary: Mahmud Basa
wrongfully struck me. Mahmud Basa admits this. [II 22-144; 25 Sefer o104]
Kara Bende, zimmi tk Ka'leli Emir All: He hit me on the head with a stick and hurt
me. Ali denies that he was at fault, claiming provocation. [20 IIO-2; 24 Sevval
I027]
Sultan, zimmia: My husband Dugunci died. His daughters Hub Zaman and Yaz
Gul took his land to the land registry (tapu). Now the spahi is interfering. [12
2I3-17; z6 Muharrem o108]
Gulbende v. Karaman of Endirlik village tk spahi Murteza Beg bn Abdullah:
Murteza Beg has my lost mule. I want it. Murteza Beg claims he bought it
for 2000 akce. However, Satilmus bn Adbullah and Hizir bn Turmus confirm
Gulbende. [20 96-4; 6 Ramazan I027]
Yagib v. (?), Hizir (?) v. Anderik, and Kaya v. Sahin, imperial (havass-i humayun)
reaya of (?) village td Ali Beg: He has tormented us and beaten us, saying I
am appointed herder of you all. He has asserted that he would never go to
court or to the kadi. He has been cruel to us. We want him to come. Ali Beg
denies this charge, but witnesses ('udul-i Muslimun) Ebul-Kasim bn Habil,
Omer Dede, kale kethuda Mustafa Beg, Mehmed Bese, and the people generally
(cemm-i gafir, cem'-ikesir) confirm the charges of the reaya. [13 73-3; i2 Sefer
IoI9]
Yagob, Migirdic, Bogos, (?), (?), Kucuk, Devlet, Kabil, and others of Muncusun
village tk HasanCavus, who possesses (mutasarrif) the village: He took exces-
sive taxes from us. (Listed specifically.) He has done us every harm. Let him
be subject to the sharia. Hasan denies taking a single akce beyond what is
stipulated in the imperial order (emr). [zo20I53-I; 24 Rebi I o028]
From Dar Siyak village (?) Bali v. Manuel, Nikon v. Timur, Sefer v. Karaca, (?)
v. Kostendil, Gulabi v. (?) Bayram, Bali v. Bulbul, (?) v. Migirdic, Kumri
v. (?) Bayram, and others tk Mahmud (Cavus bn Osman (avus, one of the
7uama (holders of Ziamet) who possess the village: We have a sealed document
(temessuk) from our aga Mahmud ;avus that he should collect our taxes [enu-
merated] but nothing more and should not oppress us. Let this be registered.
Mahmud (avus confirms this. [20 I64-3; 25 Rebi I I028]
From Germir village Dede Bali, Mikul (?), Kurd, Panis Kesis, Gunduz, Kara Bende,
Rusen, Karli, Celebseh, Kara Bid, and Kara Goz tk Haci Ahmed Beg bn Ab-
dullah, spahi of the village: Ahmed is onerous, beats us, and curses us; on some
he uses the bastinado. He took money from us by force, contrary to the sharia
270 R. C. JENNINGS
and kanun, a total of 40 gurus. He does us every injustice. Let our rights be
protected. Ahmed asserts that he did not beat nor curse them nor take money
by force. I know nothing about it. When the zimmis were asked for proof,
Sefer Beg bn Abdullah and Mehmed bn Abdullah confirmed that Ahmed had
beaten the zimmis and taken their money. [20 I98-2; 4 Rebi I 1027]
Kuyumci Barakv. Baraktk Ebu Bekr, man of spahi Malkoc Beg: He came upon me
while I was minding my own business. He blocked my way and started a fight
with me, saying, why did you register with tax (cizye) collector (haracci)Dilaver
Aga? You should register with our aga. He struck me with a knife. Let Ebu
Bekr be questioned. Ebu Bekr confesses striking him on the head a few times.
This information was heard before Musli Beg bn Yusuf, man of Dilaver Aga,
kethudaof the Kayseri alti bolukhalk. [25 59-2; 2 Cumadi II 1034]
Sirin b. Bahsi of Erkilat village tm mir liva kethuda [si] Receb Aga: I am from that
village but I have lived in the city for 25 years. Receb Aga threatensme, saying
move to the village. Receb says that Sirin has not been in the city as long as he
claimed. However, Mevlana Beser Halife bn Mercan and Haci Mustafa bn
?emsed-din confirm Sirin's claim. So Receb is restrained. [I7 9-2; 8 Sevval
1022]
Kablan v. (?), (?) v. Maksud, Madan (?) v. Sultan, Kirkor v. Kusuk, (?) Kesis
v. Vartan, 'Acem Kesis... and others of Tomarza and other villages subject
to the evkaf for the mosque and 'imaretbuilt by Haci Ahmed Basa in Kayseri
tk Hizir ;avus, who holds the villages as a taxfarm(iltiZam) from Muhammed
Beg, the administrator(mutevelli)of the vakf: Our previous administratorsdid
not oppress us and did not take illegal taxes from us, contrary to the sharia,
as Hizir has done. Other administratorscame with one horse, but he came with
12 horses and stayed forty days. He sent his servants to our houses to call
together and abuse our wives, sons, and daughters. [Numerous other abuses
are mentioned.] Hizir Cavus denies this all. Abdus-Selam bn Haci Mursel and
Veli bn Tanyel confirm the charges of the zimmis. The nahiyenaibiAbdullah
Celebi adds that when he went to the villages all the people came to complain
of Hizir (Cavus,saying if these abuses are not stopped we will all leave the vil-
lage. A priest testifies that Hizir struck him and imprisoned him three days.
We have never seen an administratorlike this one. [20 102-3; 26 Ramazan
1027]
Bandits and brigands were particularly dreaded, and sometimes

zimmis petitioned the court to protect them.
A group from Talas village (including Nebi, Nebi Bese, Ibrahim Beg, Sultan v.
Karaca, (?) v. Bagvand, Sefer v. Kara Koc, Cihan Seh b. Vasil, (?) v. Tatar,
Kalender v. Sultan): We brought the keys of our houses to court. If Bende v.
Hizir (?) and Devlet v. Arutyun are releasedfrom prison, all of us will migrate
(celay-ivatan).[ 3 7-7; 3 Zilkade ioi8]
Musa Kethuda, Musa bn Abdal, Cafer bn Yusuf, Hasan Aga bn Huseyn, Abdur-
Rahmanbn Abdur-Rahim,Abdur-Rahmanbn Barak,C;iragbn Ishak, and other
Muslims of Hisarcik village and Ali Bese bn Abdullah, Gul Dede v. Karaman,
Karli v. Yuri, Yusuf v. qoban, (?) v. Dugunci, (?) Bali v. Devlet, and others
of Enderlik village came to court and complained of oppression: This year

Zul-Fikar Pasa and others besieged Kayseri with close to io,ooo men. Besides
killing so many innocent Muslims, carrying off others, and pillaging and de-
spoiling so much property,some of them came to our villages. They have carried
off our wretched people. During this fighting, the bandit (faki) Ismail and a
few of his followers were killed. His brother Yusuf has decided to take revenge
on our villages. Then everyone testifies, let Yusuf be stopped. [I4 8-i; i6 Rebi
II 1027]
Io. Zimmis vs. )immis
As is very clear already, zimmis frequently used the court for in-
ternal disputes, i.e., for disputes with other zimmis, including those
from their own mahalles,villages, and even their own families. With
the exception of land registrationand "criminal"offenses, zimmis had
no legal obligation to use the court. They did so in great numbers,
so frequentlyin fact that one might suppose that they had no internal
udicial apparatus of their own, or at least a very weak one 56).
(?) v. Firuz of Talas village davaMurad v. Bahsi: I placed cloth (juha) for security
(emanet)in his home; now he says it is lost. A large group of Muslimsand Chris-
tians (cemm-igafir, some of whose names are given) attest to the honesty of
Murad. [ 3 2-7; 5 Zilkade o108]
Aslan and Hizir, zimmis of Mermerli mescid mahalle, and sons of Dede ik their
mother Kiymet (?) bint (?), who instigated the case: We were in debt (karE-i
ser') 200 gurus to our late father. In exchange for their debt they give their
mother an estate in the mahalle next to the homes of zimmis Habes and Arzu-
man and the road. [I3 4-4; 7 Zilkade Ioi8]
Ihtiyar v. Kesis (priest): Yuseb v. Aya Bali owes me 25 gurus cash plus 5 gurus
for the price of a raincoat(yagmurluk).Yuseb denies it. [I3 5-2; 8 Zilkade ioi8]
(?) v. Sefer of Erkilat village: Yovan v. Kel Murad struck me in the arm with a
knife. [i3 2I-3; 27 Zilkade Ioi8]
Ay Hatun and Sultan, daughters of Vartan davaMeliki v. Bayram: He occupies the
property we inherited at Merkeb Meydan. [I3 80-4; 2I Sefer 1019]
Gabriyalv. Kesis (priest) ik his wife Gul Cihanbint Hoca: I owe my wife 5ooo akce
which she inherited from her father. I therefore give her 5000 akce worth of
56) Fattalpoints out that Abu Hanifa requireskadis to accept the cases of zimmis;
he adds that the Hanefi jurists Abu Yusuf, Shaybani, and Mawardi hold that the
judgment of zimmi judges is arbitraryand discretionary, so that the kadi's court
is the jurisdictionof communal law for zimmis, p. 353. Zimmis of the same confes-
sion come on their own initiative, while zimmis of differentconfessions may find it
essential to bring disputes before the kadi. Misdemeanors of such gravity as to
affect Muslim public order must be brought to the kadi's court, Fattal, p. 349 ff.
Zimmis may testify against one another in court, p. 360.
272 R. C. JENNINGS
my property (vineyard, house, etc.) to pay the debt. [I4 I-5; selh Muharrem
ioI6]
Hudavirdi v. Bogos: I owe Tanri Virdi v. (?) 54 1/2 gurus. I promise to pay in 3
days. [I5 30-I; 22 Cumadi II Ioi9]
Arutyun and Begler (?), zimmis, and their sister Hatun, of Islim Pasa mahalle ik
their brother Devlet: We sell our share of inheritancefrom the estate of our
mother for 5 gurus each, and Hatun sells her shares from her mother and her
father to Devlet for io gurus. [I5 33-3; III Cumadi I o119]
Murad and Firenk, sons of Pacok (?) td Zeki v. Sahin: Zeki wounded us with a
sword. When Murad is examined, Ismail Aga finds that he has a wound. [15
IIo-2; 19 Zilkade 1019]
Misr v. Kaysar is vekil for Kirkor v. (?) tk Vartan Kesis (priest): Vartan Kesis
came into the church drunk (sarhos),where the vartabetcursed a number of
people. I want to him be punished in accordance with the sharia. Indeed,
Vartan did enter the church drunk; the assertion of Misr is true. [I5 15-4;
26 Sevval 1019]
Sefer Bese bn Abdullah and his sister Sultan bint Kaysar ik their uncle ('amm) Kucuk
Gazi: In exchange for our shares of our inheritance from our father Kaysar,
our grandfather (dede)Ivad, and our mother Kidem, we have accepted 5 gurus
and 4 kile wheat from our uncle Kucuk Gazi. [i5 I72-I; 27 Cumadi II o020]
Bagvand Kethuda is vekil for Kirkor Kesis (priest) dava Simavun, vasi for the or-
phans of the late Hizir (?) Bali: The late Hizir owed my muvekkil 100 gurus from
a loan (karz-i hasen). Confirmed by Saye and Serkis. [I5 I92-6; 20 Ramazan
1020]
Seller Vanli Zekeriya, zimmi ik his wife Kidem bint Melik Seh: One of 3 shares of
a vineyard at Bel Basi, next to Bagvand, Suh (?), Murad, and Sinan, sells to
her for 30 gurus. [15 200-3; II Sevval ozo020]
Andreyas v. Kesis (priest) of Dar Siyak village: Anasdas v. Nikol of the village gave
me a beating and injured my arm. [19 20-II; 8 Saban 1025]
Andreyas of Dar Siyak village dava Mirza, zimmi: Mirza brought his ox into my
vineyard and then suddenly struck me on my arm, injuring it. Mirza claims
that he was struck first. Andreyas is asked for proof. [19 20-21; 8 Saban I025]
Hagik v. Hizir (?) tk Altun bint Agob: She is my wife (nikahli). While I was away,
she went to this Yusuf v. (?). I want the sharia enforced. Altun says that she
did not like Hacik's father so she went to Yusuf while her husband was away.
[20 75-5; 22 Receb 1027]
Arutyun v. Migar (?) ik Tatar v. Misr: Dispute over their partnership (ortakluk) ....
[20 III-3; selh Sevval 1027]
Bali v. Kutlu of Istefena village dava Bunyad of the village: Last evening I found
Bunyad in the grainery (samanluk) of my house with my wife. I had no choice.
I struck him on the head with a peg from the yoke of my ox cart (givle). It broke,
and he struck me several times. Ask the people of the village. They saw him
in my house. Bunyad says that Bali attacked him while he was wandering
around (gegmek) the village. The people of the village confirm Bunyad's claim.
[20 131-5: 3 Muharrem 1028]
(?) v. Gulabi of Tavukci mahalle tk (?) v. Bunyad: He is occupying my house in
the mahalle. The accused claims to have a document (huccet) from Mevlana
Hamze Efendi dated 8 Zilhicce I013 which proves that the house was his.
When the accuser challenged the contents of the huccet,Mukaddes Kirakos v.
Kobek (?) and Mukaddes Sehri v. (?) confirm the contents of the huccet.[25
100-3; 4 Receb 0o34]
Bavlo (?) v. Kaya of Dar Siyak village tk Matayil (?) v. Celeb Virdi: He owed my
late father 880 akce from rent. I want it. Matayil claims that he repaid all to
Kaya. Anasdas v. Sefer and Bali v. Bagci confirm this claim. [27 12-5; 3 Receb
I035]
(?) v. Satilmus of Molu village tk Bunyad v. Seh Bali, his son (?), and Marta v.
[bint] Satilmus; While my sister Marta'shusband (?) was away, it was said that
she was involved with a man named (?). Her husband's father Bunyad threw
a stone at Marta.She has lived with me for four months-what he says is slander
(buhtan)!Let Bunyad be asked. Bunyad reaffirmshis claim; he says that he has
proof but is unable to produce evidence even after a delay. When there is no
proof forthcoming, Marta is asked to take an oath, which she does. [27 79-4;
i Zilkade I035]
Martabint Satilmus of Molu village ik Bunyad v. Seh Bali: Bunyad slanderedme,
testifying that he saw me with a stranger (na mahrem);but he could not prove
his claim. Flogging (ta'zir) was necessary for him, but I renounced my right
to having him flogged. I have no further claim. [27 79-5; i Zilkade 1035]
Iskender and Istu (?), zimmis of Boza Hane mahalle tk zimmi Kara Goz of the
mahalle:Ali Beg collected 22 gurus for haracof the year 1035 from our mahalle;
Kara Goz contributed nothing, but we had to pay for him. Kara Goz acknow-
ledges this. [Amasya i 63-4; 2 Cumadi II I035] Cf. I3 25-6, 7; 20 i8-2, 25-3,
44-4, 6I-4, 102-3, I2i-i; 22 i8-5; 24 I9-1; 25 63-5, which occur elsewhere in
the text.
I I. Zimmis as kefil
In Kayseri there were two kinds of kefil (guarantor), one for the
person (kefilbin-nefs)and the other for property (kefilbil-mal).Zimmis
served as both, albeit with no real frequency 57).
Makul (?) Kesis (priest) bn [error for v.] Ugurlu, Kara Bid v. Toti (?), and Kucuk
v. Tatar are kefil bin-nefsfor Panis Kesis of Germir village for 3 days. [i 3 24-II;
2 Zilhicce IoI8]
Bagvand Kethuda: I am kefilbin-nefsfor the people of Yalman, Bektas, Sehre Gusti,
and Harbut mahalles. [ 3 45-6; 4 Muharrem 1019]
Haci Uveys bn Mahmud is kefil for Nikol v. (?) Beg. [I 5 6o-; 17 Receb 109]
Kel Baba and Bende v. Karamanik Talasli Ali Beg bn Abdullah: We borrow 40
gurus from Ali, from now till the end of the year. Hizir is kefil bil-maland our
two fields at Suk Aldi (?) at Talas are security (rehn) [I3 7-5; 12 Zilkade o108]
Seh Ana bint Arutyun and Ak Gul bunt Hizir Seh ik Mustafabn Muzaffer:We are
57) "In many cases Muslims acted as business agents, wakil, for Jews and vice
versa," Goitein, Mediterranean
Society,v. II, p. 295.
i8
274 R. C. JENNINGS
kefil bil-mal for 30 days for Kara Bid's debt to Mustafa (i gurus). [I4 34-I; 9
Muharrem Io07]
Tanri Virdi v. Kalayci is kefil bil-malfor I83 gurus worth of cotton given on credit
to Iskender v. Kilic by Ahmed bn Mustafa. . [20 IOI-3; 23 Ramazan I027]
Zimmi (?) v. (?) is kefilbil-malfor 20 gurus his maternaluncle (dayi)Ismail (?) owes
Baram Bese bn Abdullah. [20 I40-3; 26 Muharrem Ioz8]
12. Zimmis and Islamic family law

If zimmis took to the shariacourt of Kayseritheir domesticproblems,
judgment was of course made in terms of the sharia, rather than of
any Christianlaw. The customary marriage and divorce law of the
Christiansof Kayseri is not revealedin the sicils. Neither is it revealed
whether the zimmis used their own communal law in disputes which
they did not direct specificallyto the shariacourt. It is not impossible
that Kayseri zimmis generallyfollowed Islamic law in family matters,
or that their traditionalfamily law closely resembledthat of the Mus-
lims. At any rate, it is not possible to conjecturewhat proportion of
zimmis had recourse to the sharia court, or when, or under what
circumstances.The number of cases involved was not too large, but
even with Muslims not a lot of cases involving marriageand divorce
reached the courts 58).
At least under some circumstancezimmi women received dowry
like Muslim women.
Hatun Bola bint Bali, wife of the late Yovan tk Yusuf Beg bn Abdullah, vasi for
the orphans (?) and Kaya: Yovan's estate owes IIo gurus delayed dowry
(mehr-imu'eccel).Confirmedby Sultan Bali v. Imir Bali and Dede Bali v. Imir
Bali. [20 2 I-I; 26 Zilkade 1027]
Sultana bint Yur (?), zimmia and widow (zevce'-imetruka)of the late Mustafa Bese
of Ergaliye (?) village has as vekil for the matterIbrahimbn Kalenderik Abdul-
Baki bn Mehmed: Her husband owed her Iooo akce delayed dowry (mehr-i
mu'eccel).[Trabzon 42/1821 9-6; selh Sefer o029. Cf. 15 31-3; 24 Cumadi I IoI9.
25 2-3; 9 Muharrem I034]
58) Fattal notes that Hanefi legal opinions from Abu Hanifa make the marriage,
divorce, inheritance, and contract, of zimmis subject to the sharia just like those of
Muslims, while opinions from Abu Yusuf and Shaybani make zimmis responsible
to the law except in marriagecontracts: "the competence of dhimmi courts is purely
arbitrary",p. 355 ff. In a differentcontext, Goitein points out that in Geniza Cairo
almost all family law, inheritance,and commercialtransactionswere handled within
individual religious communities. He adds, however, that Jews and Christians
often applied to "government" (i.e., Islamic) courts, v. II, p. 2 f.
Divorce on the initiative of zimmi women also occurred,the Islamic

hul' 59).
Zulf bint Baber (?) davaMinas v. Bahadur:Minas was my husband but he divorced
me. He has some property that is mine from my earlierhusband Barak. I want
them. Minas claims that the divorce was hul': she gave up her dowry (mehr),
maintenance allowance for the duration of the formal divorce procedure
(nafaka'-i'iddet),and other marriagerights (tevciyyet);in exchange for them I
gave her certain animals and goods, as well as some cash. Zulf denies this, but
Abbas bn Seyhi and Uveys bn Kalender confirm that Zulf received these things
as claimed. [20 32-I; i Cumadi I I027]
Gevher bint KaraBid has Hizir (?) v. Polad as vekil for hul'with her husbandYagob
v. Babek (?). She renounces dowry (mehr)and maintenanceallowance (nafaka).
[23 4-IO; 20
zaban 1032]
Yagob v. Babek (?) ik his wife Cevher bint Kara Bid has Hizir (?) v. Polad as vekil
for the matter: We are not living together. She has renounced dowry (mehr)
maintenance ('iddet),and other marriage rights (Zevciyyet) and we have made
hul'. [24 4i-4; 29 Saban 1032]
Hizir (?) v. Andon of Kazgancilermahalle ik his wife Meryem bint (?): We are not
living together. She renounces claim to mehr,nafaka'-i'iddet,and other zevciyyet
and we make hul'. We have no further claims against one another. Meryem
confirms this. [27 77-I; 26 Sevval I035]
One may raise the question, did the zimmis really use those Islamic
institutionslike the Muslims, or did they merelyhave to make a formal
statementin terms of Islamic law without really ever having practiced
it? In that regard it can only be said that the procedure of such cases
when the litigants were zimmis was exactly the same as when they
were Muslims.
Ayse bint Abdullah has as vekil her husband Ahmed ?elebi bn Huseyn Cavus ik
her former husband Sinan v. Zeki: My muvekkileclaims 30 gurus mehr-imu'eccel
and her legal (sharia) share of a house and other property from Sinan. Sulh
(reconciliation)is made for 6 gurus. It is paid in full and both sides waive all
further claims. [20 5-3; I Rebi I 1027]
Korkmaz v. eemid(?), zimmi of the gypsies (Pose taifesi)ik his wife Gevher bint
Tuman (?): We were not living together (gindegane),so she renounced claim
59) According to Fattal, Hanefi and Shafii legists recognize triple repudiation
by zimmis as divorce. Fetvas of Ebussuud refer to zimmi men divorcing their wives
like Muslims, at the kadi's court. Zimmi men are held responsible for maintenance
(nafaka),but they are not requiredto observe the waiting period (iddet)requiredfor
Muslims to remarry.Unlike Muslims, zimmi men who pronounce divorce but do
not separatefrom their wives are not divorced. Dizdag, p. 93, no. 394; p. 99, no.
429, 43I, 430.
276 R. C. JENNINGS
to mehr,nafaka'-i'iddet,and other Zevciyyet, and I gave her 4 gurus payment

for hul' (bedel-ihul'). She accepts this. [20 6I-I; 25 CumadiII 1027]
Iskender v. Hizir (?) ik Altun bint Agob: My wife and I were not living together
(Zindegane).She renounces mehr,nafaka'-i'iddet,and other Zevciyyet for I5 gurus.
I divorce her (bayintalak). She accepts this. [20 76-5; 24 Receb I027. Cf. 20
56-4; io CumadiII I027]
As the firmansdescribedbelow indicate, sometimes Muslim author-

ities interferedwith zimmis' practice of their native customs. It is not
clear whether this "interference"represents explicit Muslim policy
or simply amounts to giving comfort and support to zimmis who
flouted the religious laws of their own communities. Note the appeal
to the sharia.
To Kayseri kadi, know that the bearer of this firman, Kirkor, one of the priests
(kesis) of the infidels (kefere)of Kayseri, came to my army camp and made a
petition (art-i hal): When it is necessaryto take a wife or divorce her according
to the religion (din)of the infidels (keferetaifesi), some people prevent this and
interfere, contrary to the sharia. They have no reason for doing this. I want
an imperial order (hukm)ordering that this be stopped. I order that: When my
imperial order arrives, you should see if this is true. If this is so, let the kefere
take wives and divorce them in accordancewith their religion. It is not permis-
sable to interferein these matters. Do not cause them injustice. Do not violate
the sharia or kanun. [20 274-4; III Cumadi II I027, from Amid]
To Kayseri and Nigde sancak begs and to kadis of Kayseri, Nigde, Kara Hisar
Develi, Urgub, Bor, and Haci Bektas: The monk (?), metropolitan of the in-
fidels (kefere)in the above kadiliks,presented a petition: Some people prevent
my appointing, dismissing, and disciplining papas and kesis of my metropoli-
tanate according to our rites (ayin).They violate customs by taking 'usr from
gardens (bagce),farms (fiftlik), and fields (tarla) made vakf for the church in
the past, which are mine in accordance with imperial berat. When you have
heard this in accordancewith the sharia in your imperial council I request an
imperial order. I order that: You should prevent anyone from doing harm to
the monk in the ways mentioned above. If it is necessary to dismiss, appoint,
or discipline a papas or kesis,no one from the imperial service should interfere.
You should not interfere with vineyards, gardens, farms, and fields which
have been made vakf for the church in accordancewith my berat. If they are
not obedient to the sharia, you should report them to me. [I3 104-I; 17 Rebi
II ioi8]
I 3. Zimmi evkaf
A few cases give referenceto the foundation and operation of evkaf

by zimmis60). These provide yet another example of zimmis making

use of an essentially Islamic institution.
Hoca Bagvand, Misr Kethuda, Serkis, Kara Devlet, and others: We want Darador
v. Ohan to be appointed gratuitous administrator(hasbimutevelli)of the money
made vakf for the poor of the Armenian church (Ermeni kilise). Darador is
so appointed, and he accepts. [20 I75-3; II Rebi II io28] Darador v. Ohan,
gratuitous administrator of the evkaf for the poor of the Armenian church
(Ermenitaifesikinisa) tk (?) v. Kirkor: The late Tanyel v. Murad, grandfather
of (?) v. Kirkor, was administratorof the vakf. He had 230 gurus which had
been made vakf for the poor of the church. We demand it from his effects
(muhallefat),which have passed now from his late son Kirkor to Kirkor's son
(?) and other heirs. When this claim is denied, Hoca Bagvand v. Kucuk and
Hacik v. Zadik (?) confirm Darador. [20 177-2; 14 Rebi II Io28]
Darador v. Ohan, gratuitousadministratorof the vakf for the poor of the Armenian
church ik (?) v. Kirkor: The 230 gurus is not paid in full. [20 177-3; 14 Rebi
II o028]
Bedros v. Davud: Darador v. Ohan had 50 esedi gurus that I made vakf. Now
Bedros has received it in full. [23 26-4; 23 Sevval Io32] 61)
The terms of a vakf which Anasdas v. Bedri tried to establish were

found "unsound" and so it was not allowed.
Anasdas v. Bedri of Bezirci mahalle: I made vakf 8000 akce of my property, to be
lent out at 20% interest (mu'amele-iser'). A condition (sart) was that it should
be spent on the 'avariZof the Greek community (Rumiyantaife)and that I should
not have to pay 'avarig.The money was given to Habes v. Kaysar, who was to
be administrator. The vakf was judged unsound (not sahib), so the money
should revert to me. [I4 49-I; undated, o106]
Apparently some evkaf received donations from both zimmis and

Muslims, and served both communities as well. Where Muslims and
60) Zimmis may establisha vakf for their benefit or for the benefit of their parish.
Muslims may do likewise for zimmis. Fattal,p. 143. Cf. Diizdag, p. 103, no. 453 and
p. 104, no. 454, 455 for fetvas. Vryonis attaches particularimportance to the role
of evkaf in the decline of the Christianpopulation. "Consequently,the ulemas and
dervishes had the economic wherewithal to perform their spiritual functions with
elegance and their socioeconomic tasks with great efficiency. The key economic
function underlying the vitality and effectiveness of Muslim expression was the
wakf (pl. awkaf), the economic endowment of religious and social foundations...
the wakf constitutes the economic form par excellence which testifies to the spread
of Islam....", Decline..., p. 352. Apparently the Christiansof Kayseri had that
institution at their service, although their community may not have had as much
wealth to tap as the Muslims there did.
6i) See Jennings, "Loans and Credit",pp. 204, 207.
278 R. C. JENNINGS
zimmis sharedthe use of a common benefice, such as water, or where

Muslims and zimmis lived in the same mahalles,it would not be sur-
prising for them to have contributedto the same evkaf.
Bedros v. Davud made vakf a house. Haci Barakbn Gazi is appointedadministrator,
and Haci Abdur-Rahmanis overseer (nazir). The house may be sold and other
property may be bought. The rent (icare)is to be spent on the repair af Buyuk
Cesme (a fountain). [23 19-7: 4 Sevval 1032]
Abdur-Rezak bn Mustafa: (?) v. Ivan and Arzuman made vakf 5 gurus for the
dyers, canal (boyaciharki), and I was gratuitous administrator.I was not able
to do so, so I gave the money to Hizir(?) v. (?) and Bali v. Arzuman. Let it
be given out for 20% interest (Io for 12 mu'amele)from now until the end of
the year. [20 120-4; 25 Zilkade 1027. For other references to the Buyuk ;esme
vakf, see 23 28-12; 2 Zilkade 1032. 24 69-2; 6 Zilkade 1032]
Zimmis also borrowed from Muslim evkaf.

Haci Mehmed bn Haci Abdullah: Hatir v. Andirik borrowed 60 ak altun from the
vakf of my father. When the zimmi denies this, three Muslim witnesses con-
firm Mehmed's claim. [12 20-7; 6 Rebi I IO 5]
Umm Gulsum Hatun, daughter of the late Haci Ibrahim and administratorof his
evkaf tk Kokce, a zimmi of Erkilat village: Zimmi Rumli owed the vakf 25
ak altun, having placed a vineyard as surety. Now Kokce has taken possession
of the vineyard.Kokce claimshe bought the vineyardfrom Rumli, but witnesses
confirm that, since the vineyard was surety for a debt, it cannot be sold. [I5
87-9; 15 Ramazan o119]
Mahmud Beg, administratorof the vakf for the fountain established by the late
Cafer Beg tk zimmi Tatar: Tatar has 20 gurus belonging to the vakf. I want
it. Tatar says his debt is only io gurus. Mahmudhas no proof, so Tataris asked
to take an oath, which he does. [27 49-4; 29 Ramazan 1035]
Bali v. Manuel, zimmi of Isbarta ik Abdul-Latif (elebi, vekil for Bekr (elebi bn
Tunbul, who was formerly administrator of Firdos Beg mosque (cam'i): I
took 6oo akce from the evkaf of the mosque from Bekr. [Isbarta 2 46-2; after
Sewal, o1 8] 62)
ASSIMILATION AND INTERMIXTURE
It is generally presumed that Armenian Gregorians in Anatolia

from Sivas west and Greek Orthodox south of the Black Sea (Pontus)
mountain range were turcophone. By I6oo, after half a millenium of
Turkish rule, the Christiansof Kayseri evidently knew neither Arme-
62) ibid. Two from Kayseri (p. 207), one from Amasya, and another from Trab-
zon (p. 209) are cited.
nian nor Greek. So Evliya ?elebi reported63). Turcophone Greek

Orthodox Christiansof the province of Karaman(more or less cor-
responding to the older Cappadocia)wrote with the Greek script.
Kayseri and the foothills of Erciyes Dagi (Mt. Argaeus) were their
chief stronghold. Whether the Karamanli Christiansare to be con-
sidered turkified Christiansor christianizedTurks remains a subject
of controversy64). The circumstancesof the Armenian Gregorians of
Kayseri resembled those of the Greek Orthodox. Simeon found that
the Armenians in the city did not know Armenian, although some
villagers did 65).
The detailed tax registers of the i6th century reveal that many of
the Christians had Turkish names. Indeed, although Turkish Mus-
lims of that century-probably as part of their continuing islamization
-increasingly adopted Islamic (mostly Arabic, but some Persian)
religious names, many of the Christiansof Karamanhad names more
Turkish (or sometimes Persian,but in the Seljuk style) than the people
who must indubitably have been Turks66). Apparently no language
63) Evliya (;elebi, Seyahatname,v. III, p. I83. Istanbul, I3I4. "ama Kurdfe ve
Rumce bilmezler". "Kurdfe" is almost certainly erroneous for "Ermenice".
64) Vryonis, who strongly supports the "turkified Christian" view, provides
a convenient review of the evidence and cites the important sources. Decline...,
p. 452-46.
65) Simeon, p. 158. "The Armenians in the city do not know Armenian, they
speak Turkish, but there are some outside the city who know Armenian." He also
noted that the Armenians in and around Konya and Ankara spoke Turkish, not
Armenian, p. I63. By way of comparison, the Jews of Fatimid Cairo, and presum-
ably throughout much of the contemporaryMediterraneanworld, spoke the Arabic
language as their "native tongue", although they often wrote with Hebrew script.
In the IIth and I2th centuries, Arabic was even the language of Jewish courts,
Goitein, v. p. 14 f.
66) I. H. Konyali, Karaman Tarihi, Istanbul, 1967, pp. II9, 122. For Burdur
(1522) and Isparta (I603-I749) see F. Aksu "Ispartada hiristiyan Tiirklere dair",
Un 4 (1938) 643-646, cited by X. de Planhol, De la Plaine Pamphlienneaux Lacs Pisi-
diens Nomadisme et Vie Paysanne,Paris, 1958, p. 12, and R. Jennings, "Urban popu-
lation," pp. 28, 31, 36. Greek survived in a few isolated village pockets, however.
For that see R. M. Dawkins, Modern Greek in Asia Minor. Cambridge, I916. Of
course, many turcophone Christians had Greek or Armenian names. Even alter-
nating "Turkish" and "Christian" names between generations was not uncom-
mon.
280 R. C. JENNINGS
barriersseparatedthe Christiansfrom the Muslimsor from one another.

The Muslimsand Christiansof Kayseridid not live in isolation from
one another in the early I7th century. There were no ghettos 67). In
1583 Kayseri had 72 mahalles, of which 50 were Muslim, 13 Christian,
and 9 mixed, although in 550 there had hardly been one mixed ma-
halle. A large scale immigration of outsiders from the south and east
swelled the zimmi population of the city, particularlyin the three
decades after 1550. Most of the mixed mahalles were predominantly
Muslim and relativelysmall, so only about Io%1of the populationlived
in such mahalles. If, however, as is generally presumed, communal
life centered in mahalles, the intrusion of even a few Christiansinto
a hitherto exclusively Muslim community is significant68).
Mixed Mahalles of Kayseri, I583 (in nefer)
Muslim zimmi
Dervis Beg mahalle 142 + 13 = 55
Gurci 41 + 3 = 44
mescid-i Haci Mansur 129 + 6 = 135
Nesibe Hatun 40 + 5 = 45
Emir Sultan 33 + 4 = 37
Islim Pasa 15 + i = 26
Husayinlu 3 7 + 2 = 3 9
Sasik (?) 38 + 5 43
Tac Kizil 44 + 4 = 48
67) Three fetvas of the jurist Ebussuud take for granted that zimmis live adjacent
to Muslimsbut precludethem from living immediatelyadjacentto mosques. Diizdag,
p. 94, no. 403, 404; p. 95, no. 405; p. 97, no. 413. Cf. Goitein, v. II, p. 289 f. "The
massive and reliable testimony of the Geniza documents proves that Muslims,
Christians,and Jews lived in closest proximity to one another, to a far higher degree
than could have been assumed on the basis of our literary sources .... there were
many neighborhoods predominantly Jewish, but hardly any that were exclusively
so," p. 290. "As far as our documents indicate boundaries, we see that even in the
Jewish neighborhoods, at least half the houses had gentile neighbors," p. 293. "On
the Islamic side, no restrictionswith regard to the freedom of choosing their domi-
cile were imposed in our period on non-Muslims." Lapidusconcluded that in Mam-
luk Syriaargumentsthat Christianand Jewish minoritieswere dispersedin the popu-
lation are not tenable, but "... it would be more correct to say that they lived in
separate districts but adjacent to Muslim streets. There was some separation of
persons by community but no ghetto-like isolation of communities in the whole,"
Lapidus, p. 85 f.
68) Jennings, "Urban population", p. 38 ff., 48. Amasya had 6 of 47 mahalles
mixed in 1576, a new development there too; most were primarilyMuslim. By 1642
ZIMMIS IN OTTOMAN RECORDS 28i
Intercommunalexchange of both residentialand agriculturalprop-

erty was on the rise in Kayseri. I34 of the former and I74 of the latter,
a total of 308 pieces of propertypassed from membersof one faith to
membersof the other. 22% of propertytransfersand 14% of building
transfers crossed faiths. [See Table VI.] Zimmis not only cultivated
fields and vineyardsnext to those of Muslims but also lived in houses
next to them. Zimmis lived in houses once lived in by Muslims and
vice versa. (Does that indicate that both Muslim and Christianhouses
had the customary order of selamlik and haremlik?)A zimmi might
be the neighbor of an imam, a muderris,or even a kadi, not to men-
tion a spahi or an ayan.
The names of neighboring property owners were sometimes noted
in sicils when property contiguous to theirs was being transferredor
was otherwise involved in litigation; they often were of a different
faith from the litigants or parties to the sale. UnfortunatelyI do not
have counts of their frequency.
Many of the villages closest to Kayseri were either mixed or zimmi,
although many others were all Muslim. Older zimmi settlements
retained hold on much of the most fertile, best watered land on the
lower slopes of Mt. Erciyes and its foothills while late coming Turk-
mans were often left the more arid, less productive lowlands. In the
better areas fruits, vegetables, and particularlygrapes were cultivated,
along with some wheat, while the lowlands were devoted almost
exclusively to wheat and other grains, sometimeswith limited gardens.
In the district (nahiye)of Mt. Ali and Mt. Erciyes south of Kayseri
3 of 13 villages can be called mixed (Talas 6I3 nefer: 58I zimmi, 32
Muslim; Zinci Dere 86 nefer: 75 zimmi, i Muslim; and Tomarza450:
428 zimmi, 22 Muslim), while 2 of Io9 nefer in Istefane village and 4
of I69 in Endurluk were Muslims.
7 of I7 mahalles were mixed, including all those in which zimmis lived; 6o% of
the population lived in such mahalles. Although in I591 only 4 of 20 mahalles in
Erzurum were mixed, 55% of the urban population lived in those mahalles. In
Amasya and Erzurum, as in Kayseri, prior to the second half of the i6th century
there was very little mixed residence. Lapidus uses the term solidarity to describe
communal relations within a mahalle. e.g., p. 85 f.
282 R. C. JENNINGS
Along the Koramaz mountains running northeast from Kayseri,

marking the eastern edge of the plain (sahra),lay Koramaz district,
where 5 of 31 villages were mixed (Gomulgin 552 nefer: 277 zimmi
and 275 Muslim; Gesi 344: 233 zimmi and iii Muslim; Sarimsaklu
496: 243 zimmi, 253 Muslim; Mancusun 346: 319 zimmi, 27 Muslim;
and Ulu Berengoz village 305: 246 zimmi and 59 Muslim). Der Siyak
village had 5 Muslim nefer of 215, Agirnos 5 of 245, Vekse i of 62,
and Efkere i of 372.
In Saharadistrict, the plain opening northeast from Kayseri, 2 of
39 villages were mixed (Erkilat 330 nefer: 258 zimmi and 72 Muslim;
and Isbidun IIo: 71 zimmi, 39 Muslim), while Io of 317 nefer at Mun-
cusun village, 4 of 118at Tavansun,and 4 of 139 at Venek were Muslim,
and 3 of 56 nefer at Dadesun and 2 of 75 at Cirlavukvillage were zim-
mis 69).
Zimmis came to court day after day. Their cases were so intermixed
with those of Muslims that there cannot have been any calendar re-
stricting them to particular days, times of day, or district courts.
Moreover, since all the leading Muslims attended court regularly-
particularlythe ulema-they must have encounteredthe zimmis there.
The willingness of Muslim courts to consider cases brought by
zimmis must have been disruptive to zimmi communities70). In an
instance when shariawould have been more favorablethan communal
law to a litigant, he had only to approachthe kadi. A relativelycohesive
and sophisticated Jewish minority in Fatimid Cairo had to resort to
communalpressuresand even the threat of excommunicationfrom the
communityto preventits membersfrom seeking out the shariacourt 71).
Zimmis who felt an injustice done them by communal mediators-
and wouldn't everyone who lost a serious dispute feel that way?-
could appeal to the kadi. Zimmis might have found that practice
demoralizingand destabilizingeven if the shariacourt conscientiously
undertook to handle the cases justly and fairly.
69) Tapu ve Kadastro, Ankara. Tapu defter no. I36, Kayseri liva. Dated 1583
(992).
70) Cf. Goitein, v. II, po. 398, 400.
71) Goitein, v. II, p. 33 f.
All occupations seem to have been open to zimmis, who were arti-
sans, craftsmen,and cultivators.Nor do Muslims seem to have scorned
any of the trades. A study of the cases indicates, that Muslims and
Christiansparticipatedin the same occupationsof the city and country-
side (except where zimmis were forbidden, like the military-and
many of the military, of course, were converted zimmis). A list of
"occupational names" supports this observation: e.g., Yayci (arrow-
maker)Ali, Penbeci (cotton merchant)Deli Veli, Bagadassarv. Katirci
(mule driver), Kalayci (tinsmith) Toros, etc. Muslims and zimmis
both filled occupations such as: grape grower (bagci), goldsmith
(kuyumci,altunci), stone-cutter (tafci), pickle-maker (tursuci),wood-
cutter (otunci),cooked meat seller (kebbabci),boilermaker(kavganci),
green grocer (bakkal),tentmaker(fadirci),shoe maker (hafaf), opium
merchant (afyonci),furrier (kurkci), saddler (serrac),surgeon (cerrah),
butcher (kassab),tailor (terri), bread baker (etmekci),cobbler (eskici),
camel driver (deveci),and blacksmith (nalbend).Unfortunately, partic-
ularly because of the scarcityin the sicils of informationabout guilds,
it has not been possible to determine the proportion of zimmis in
the aforementionedoccupations, but I would guess that zimmis were
distributedin tradesand craftsrelativelyin proportion to their numbers
in the city. That would be similar both to Ottoman Bursa and to
Fatimid Cairo 72).
72) Inalcik describes in detail a mercantile mentality at 5th/i6th century Bursa,

and he argues that profit motive was widespread: "In all classes of Ottoman society
there was apparent a great desire to put cash into making profit; and the most
profitable field for investment of cash wealth was commerce," p. 99. "It was a general
tendency with the Ottomans not to leave idle any capital in their possession, however
small," p. I 30. "Capital Formation in the Ottoman Empire", Journal of Economic
History 29 (I969) 97-140. Ottoman Muslims were as much involved as zimmis:
"This is the place to correct the mistaken view that these merchants and bankers
were non-Muslims, and that Muslims entered only the profession of arms and admi-
nistration... It can be said quite definitely that until the eighteenth century Mus-
lims were as numerous and as active as non-Muslims in these fields-indeed until
the seventeenth century the Muslims predominated among the merchants,"
p. 138.
See also "Bursa and the Commerce of the Levant",JESHO 3 (i96o) I33 ff., 141,
145; "Bursa", Belleten 24 (I960) 45-66; and "The Ottoman Economic Mind and
Aspects of the Ottoman Economy", in Studies in the Economic History of the Middle
East, ed. M. A. Cook, London, I970, pp. 207-218. Cf. Goitein, v. I, p. 70 f. "Des-
284 R. C. JENNINGS
Vryonis, Goitein, and Lapidus have all attested to the precarious

position of zimmi minoritiesunder Muslim rule. Vryonis is pessimistic:
"The demands of the Turkish political, fiscal, feudal, and religious
institutions destroyed the economic as well as the political and social
bases of Byzantine Hochkultur in Anatolia (and in the Balkans as
well), and in so doing reduced this culture to an almost exclusively
Volkskultur" 73). He concludes that the destructive conquests, the
disruption of contacts with the patriarchate,and the periodic plunder
of Greek Orthodox institutions in Anatolia under Turkish Muslim
rule had the cumulative effect of weakening their adherence to the
church and diminishing their numbers. Goitein emphasizesgood and
bad factors: "Islamic law protected their life, property, and freedom
and with certain restrictions, granted them also the right to exercise
their religion. On the other hand, it demandedfrom them segregation
and subservience,conditions that under a weak or wicked government
could and did lead to situationsbordering on lawlessnessand outright
persecutions" 74). "Looking back on the testimony of the Geniza
documents with regardto interfaithrelationswe find that the religious
concepts of superiority and seclusion-which should not be rated
pite the high degree of legal and civic autonomy enjoyed by them [the Jews] at
that time, and despite their status as semiforeigners, which they shared with the
Christiansin the realm of Islam and which was even more accentuatedin Europe,
in this period they mingled very freely with their neighbors and, therefore, cannot
have been very much differentfrom them." Jewish tradesmenof a given class had
the same socal position as Christian and Muslim fellow workers, p. 7I. "Mutual
help, as expressed in small, but not too small, loans, is attested in the Geniza as
prevailing between members of differentfaiths but of the same or similar profes-
sions," p. 72. "... in the world reflectedin the Geniza, we find them in practically
all arts and crafts, including agriculture."". . . both the Geniza and Muslim literary
sources show us that Gentiles were engaged in all the ways of making a livelihood
which were adopted by Jews." Partnerships between Muslims and Jews, both
industrial and commercial, were nothing exceptional," v. II, pp. 256 ff., 262. Just
as Lapidus has demonstrated that the Muslims of Mamluk Syria were active in
trade and business, and Inalcik has shown that the commerce of i5th century Bursa
was largely in Muslim hands, so it may be considered that Muslims predominated
in the local trade of Kayseri in the early i7th century.
73) Vryonis, Decline. .., p. 496.
74) Goitein, v. II, p. 289.
solely as negative-were counteractedby economic and social condi-

tions that made for a more tolerant attitude"75). Lapidus points out
instances of mob violence in Syria and Egypt when "mobs of plun-
derers"under "social stresses" destroyed churches or set upon Chris-
tians 76). Violence and oppression towards zimmis seems foreign to
Kayseri, although admittedlyI have only considered a 25-yearperiod.
By necessity, the sources that Vyronis and particularlyGoitein used
are primarilyfrom the side of the minorities,while the judicialregisters
I have used are fashioned by the predominant Muslims and are not
even supplementedby any contemporarylocal chronicles. Conceding
both the limitations and the different emphasis of my sources, still
there is considerable evidence that the court in Kayseri did protect
zimmis even against the rich and powerful. Furthermore,the Kayseri
sicils indicate a general absence of the sort of chronic unruliness of
the mob, the lumpenproletariat,that Lapidus finds so widespread in
Syria: either Turks did not behave in that fashion or "the authorities"
had the upperhandin Kayseri and were not so lackadaisicalas those
in MamlukSyria.My own estimationof the situationthere corresponds
to Cahen's for Seljuk Anatolia, when he found "interdenominational
relations" "singularly good once a stable political situation had been
established"77).
75) Goitein, v. II, p. 299.

76) Lapidus, pp. 269, 169, I79, 288 ff., 29I f.
77) Cl. Cahen,"Dhimma", El2. As Abu Yusuf informed CaliphHarunar-Rashid:
"It is appropriate,O Commanderof the Faithful, you should treat with leniency
those under the protection of our Prophet Muhammed, and not allow that more
than what is due be taken from them or more than they are able to pay, and that
nothing should be confiscated from their properties without legal justification. It
was transmittedthat the Prophet said: He who robs a dhimmi or imposes on him
more than he can bear will have me as his opponent", A. Ben Shemesh, Taxation
in Islam, v. III, Abu Yusuf'sKitabal Kharaj,Leiden, 1969, p. 85. Cf. Fattal, p. 360 f.
Osman Turan concludes that (i) tolerance of foreign religions and justice for their
adherents was the practice of pre-IslamicTurks in CentralAsia, (2) the justice and
religious tolerance of the Seljuks, and even of the Ottomans, were a factor in their
empire-building, and (3) Islam was more tolerant in Anatolia than in Syria. "Les
souverains seldjoukides et leurs sujets non-musulmans", Studia Islamica I (I953)
66, 93, Ioo.
286 R. C. JENNINGS
It has been shown that sufism made for close Muslim-Christian

relations, particularlyin Anatolia, where the followers of Mevlana
Jelaleddin Rumi and the Bektashi dervishes were so influential78).
We are told that the legalism and formalism of Islamic orthodoxy
were a counterforce, undermining intercommunal relations. The
logic is inescapable. Nevertheless Kayseri, far from being a center
of sufism, is one of the great centers of Islamic orthodoxy in Anatolia.
Was the position of zimmis better elsewhere, in Konya or Ankara,
for example?
SHARIA, KANUN, RUSUM, AND ZIMMIS
The customary law (rusumn, adet)of Kayseri seems not to have dis-
tinguished between Muslim and zimmi. For example, the fruit tax,
the sheep tax, and the vineyard tax applied to all villagers and, if the
amounts differed from village to village, Muslim and zimmi inhabi-
tants of a village shared the same obligation to pay. Customarylaws
determining rights of way or fixing the periods or irrigation water
use from a stream or fountain did not distinguish between Muslims
and zimmis; whoever owned or cultivatedadjacentlands was involved.
Likewise, the kanunsrecordedin the Kayserisicils did not distinguish
between Muslims and zimmis. The taxes levied freely by the Porte-
avarizand null- distinguishpeople on the basis of wealth, not religion.
The Porte received petitions from zimmis in the same way as from
Muslims, and the Porte issued firmans for the redress of grievances
without apparent discrimination. Of course, zimmis were not ap-
pointed to any official positions in Kayseri and had absolutely no
connection with the imperial bureaucracyor the military class; but
they had the same legal rights of appeal and suit against Ottoman
officials as Muslims did. Zimmis could complain of a rapacious tax
collector or have an oppressive spahi reprimanded,just like Muslims.
There is no evidence in the imperial orders preserved in Kayseri
sicils (I600-I625) that the Porte was anything but fair to zimmis.
78) Vryonis discusses at length their influence in hastening the process of assi-
milating the Greek Orthodox, particularly at the level of folk culture.
The distinction between Muslims and zimmis, of course, originated

in and was perpetuatedby sharia.According to the sharia,adult male
zimmis had to pay a special tax (cizye or harac)from which Muslims
were exempt. Zimmis also were excluded from serving in Islamic
armies,although that need not be considereda hardship.The testimony
of a zimmi witness could not be accepted as decisive proof against a
Muslim in court. Numerous petty discriminations existed as well.
Nevertheless, the sharia did grant zimmis broad privileges, and even
where it did discriminateagainst them the zimmis at least were given
a formal legal status. The court in Kayseri upheld the most limited
rights of zimmis as tenaciously as it did the broader privileges of the
Muslims. Although the limitations and restrictions of the sharia
prevented zimmis from being the equal of Muslims, the court in
Kayseri can be credited with supporting zimmis where the sharia
supported them, thereby giving them a stronger position than they
may have had at many other times and in many other places in Islamic
history 79).
In Evliya ?elebi's time, as in modern times, men from Kayseri went
off to Istanbul to seek fortunes. Most of the fishermen there were
Greeks from Kayseri, Nigde [southwest of Kayseri], and Mania [on
Crete]. The sappers/sewermen (laghumjian), of whom there were
5000, used shovels, hoes, baskets, and troughs and worked to clear
roads, to dig latrines for army camps, to excavate mines at sieges,
and to blow up fortress walls with powder; most were Armenians
of Kayseri,"a bad smelling set of men", with nameslike Serkis,Vartan,
Derder, Asvadur, and Mohan80).Because of its flourishing meat pro-
cessing and tanning industries, Kayseri itself must sometimes have
had a less than savory smell.
Evliya also mentions the existence in Kayseri of two old Christian
monasteries (deyr)and of a synagogue (havra)of Jews 81).
79) Turan holds the opinion here that by race, and by culture, Turks have always
been tolerant and just! pp. 66, Ioo.
80) Evliya Effendi, Narrativeof Travels.tr. J. von Hammer, London, 1834, v. I,
pt. II, pp. 160, 107.
81) Evliya 5elebi, Seyahatnamesi,Istanbul, I314, v. III, p. I83.
288 R. C. JENNINGS
Among the Armenians of Kayseri were some rich merchants, ac-

cording to Simeon of Poland, but many were poor, employed as
tailors or at other jobs 82).
Simeon tells of a tyrannical kadi recently come to Kayseri who
forbade lighting candles in churches and also the playing of drums
and fife at weddings. When Simeon and his group made the mistake
of mounting horses within the city, people attackedthem with cudgels
and threw stones at them, for non-Muslims were not permitted to
ride any animals but donkeys within the city. They barely escaped
outside the city walls 83). Simeon does not mention being punished
or even warned by the local authorities, so probably they avoided
punishment. Simeon does not mention problems with other kadis,
so we are left without knowing whether the harsh practice of that
kadi in 6 8 was at all commonplace.
CONCLUSIONS
Kayseri zimmis seem to have been alowed all urban and rural
occupations, except of course those pertaining to the Ottoman ruling
class in the army and the bureaucracy;no occupationaldifferentiation
was manifest in the first quarter of the I7th century. Zimmis were
allowed to live and to own property anywhere, so that there were
no rigid ghettos. The zimmi communitieseven chose their own leaders,
kethudasof their mahallesand villages and a single kethudawho repre-
sented them all before the authorities.
Little or no language differentiation existed to separate zimmis
from Muslims and most likely there was little cultural differentiation
either. If their acculturization to the Turkish Muslim culture of
Kayseri was not complete, it certainly was well underway. Few
conversions occured, however, and there were no visible efforts of
the Muslims to convert the local Christians.Although one must con-
sider the Muslims the "dominant" group because of their numerical
preponderance, and although there was no evidence of zimmi pre-
82) Polonyali Simeon, p. 158.
83) Ibid., p. I6o.
dominating in any particularareas, the dominant Muslims apparently

did not exploit the zimmis within the local urban and provincial con-
text.
No trends were evident regardingthe position of zimmis in Kayseri
during the period I603-I627. There is no way of knowing if their
position vis-a-vis the Muslims was improving or worsening. The
decline of ecclesiasticaladministrationand in the high culture of the
Greeks of Anatolia down to the fall of Constantinople,which has been
so well documented by Vryonis, may well have been stopped if not
reversed by the millet policies of Mehmed the Conqueror, but no
evidence was uncovered relevant to the case of Kayseri.
The period 1603-I627 in Kayseri was most emphaticallynot one
in which the zimmi minorities lorded it over Muslim Turks in eco-
nomic or cultural spheres. Neither was it a period when the Muslim
Turkish majority oppressed the zimmi minorities. Intercommunal
relations seem to have been relatively tranquil,without mutual hatred
and antagonisms (or perhaps everyone was distracted by the celali).
The period was one of integration and assimilation: Muslim and
Christian groups worked in adjacent fields, even lived in adjacent
houses. Most of the zimmis spoke Turkish as their native language
and used Turkish personal names. With perhaps a few exceptions,
zimmis ranged over the entire economy of agricultureand trade and
are virtuallyindistinguishablefrom Muslims,who also filled all occupa-
tions.
The zimmis of Kayseriincreasinglyhad recourseto the shariacourt,
in which they were subject to Islamic law and custom. They did so
of their own volition, and apparentlyit filled their individualand com-
munal needs for arbitrationand justice. It is difficultto judge the inte-
grity of a court by its own records,but my impressionis that the court
exercised justice with patience and forbearance.The zimmi may have
had as much hope for justice and fairness as his Muslim counterpart,
which was the ideal of Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf.
On the other hand, the period I603-I627 was one of economic
despair and social chaos for most of central Anatolia, unevenly.This
I9
290 R. C. JENNINGS
disturbanceis most vividly reflectedin the decline of the zimmi popu-

lation-which undoubtedly was paralled by a decline in the number
of Muslims. Only when security, law, and order were once again
imposed could society and economy be patched together again.
Table I
Tax-paying adult male gimmis (nefer) in Kayseriprovince
Before I603 Over 5000

I603 (IOI2) 3257
1604 (Io3) 2126
I605 (II14) I452
1619 (1028) 2008
I620 (I029) 2808 (522 Haleb perakende?)
1624 (I033) 2775 (2808)
I625 (I034) 5000?
TableII
Amount of Cizye
Jurisdiction I605 1607 i6o8 I609 i6io 1612 I6I5 1617 1619 I620 I623 1624 I625 1626
(I014) (ioi6) (1017) (ioI8) (II9) (I02I) (1024) (1026) (1028) (I029) (1032) (1033) (I034) (I035)
Kayseri 174 174 I76 I74 174 200 200 200 215 220 220
Kayseri evkaf 135 I74 I89
Other 200 200 200 200 220 194
(MaraS, (Maras, (Karaman) (perakende'-iHaleb) (Develu,
Elbistan, Elbistan) Haleb
Sis) perakende)
Kayseri increase, I607-I626 26%
Kayseri evkafincrease, I607-I626 43%
Table III
Potential RevenuesfromKayseri Cize (in akce)
(based on nefer from Table I and rate of cizye in Table II)
i605 (II14) 252,648

I6I9 (1028) 40I,600
I620 (I029) 56i,6oo
I624 (1o33) 6I7,760
I625 (1034) 1,I00,000* (projected)
ZIMMIS IN OTTOMAN RECORDS 29I
TableIV
Rate of Coinage(in akce)
Conversion
1607 i6o8 I6io I612 I6I5 1617 I6I9 1620 1624 I625
(ioi6) (10I7) (IO19) (I02I) (1024) (1026) (1028) (0I29) (I033) (1034)
Altun II8 ii8 II8 II8a II8a II8 118 II8 Io8 II8
Kamil gurus 78 78 78 78a 78a 78 78 78 78 78
Dirhem 9j 94
9r 94
9~ 94 9i 94 Io II
Esedi guru? 68
Osmani o1 Io
a = give or take 2 akce.
The figures in Tables V, VI, and VII are not exact. The tables are based on my
own counts from sicils where, in most cases, not even the pages are numbered.
Accuracy could have been increased by recounting all the cases involving zimmis,
or indeed the entire Io,500 cases, but that higher degree of accuracy would have
been inconsequential in terms of what profitably can be understood from the tables.
Table V
Transfersof Property Ownership, 160 0-1627

Sicil LAND BUILDING Total
no. z-z m-z z-m m-mTotal z-z m-z z-m m-mTotal (land and
building)
II 10 7 5 I7 39 5 2 4 I3 24 63
12 38 12 II 75 I36 21 7 7 66 IoI 237
I3 I 4 4 I5 24 10 I 2 I5 28 52
14 22 7 4 22 55 i8 I 6 29 54 I09
I5 26 22 9 53 IIO 27 6 7 67 I07 217
I7 27 I7 4 34 82 21 5 4 41 71 I53
20 I8 14 5 29 66 37 26 3 102 I68 234
22 7 0 0 1O 17 7 2 I I8 28 45
23 6 I I Io I8 8 2 2 I7 29 47
24 13 26 I 40 80 23 12 3 68 Io6 I86
25 15 2 I 44 62 io 9 0 56 75 I37
27 8 6 3 44 6i i8 6 4 40 68 I29
Amasya-i 0 0 o 6 6 I I o 3 5 II
Karaman 2-278 0 0 0 i6 i6 0 0 0 27 27 43
Trabzon 42-182 5 4 4 24 37 8 4 7 46 65 I02
196 122 52 439 809 214 84 5? 6o8 956 I765
46% 54%
z- z = zimmi to zimmi
m- z = muslim to zimmi
z-m = zimmi to muslim
m-m = muslim to muslim
292 R. C. JENNINGS
Table VI
Total Land and Property Transfers: 1765
809 land, 956 buildings
Land Buildings
At start zimmis owned 512 (29%) 248 (31%) 264 (28%)
At end zimmis owned 6i6 (35%) 318 (39%) 298 (3I%)
Increase 20% 28% I3%
At start Muslims owned 1253 (71%) 56I (69%) 692 (72%)
At end Muslims owned II49 (65%) 491 (6i%) 658 (69%)
Decrease 8% I2% 5%
Total Land Buildings

Total cases involving a zimmi 718 (41%) 370 (46%) 348 (36%)
Total cases involving only zimmis 410 (23%) I96 (24%) 214 (22%)
Total cases involving a Muslim I355 (77%) 613 (76%) 742 (78%)
Total cases involving only Muslims 1047 (59%) 439 (54%) 6o8 (64%)
Total cases mixed 308 (I7%) I74 (22%) 134 (I4%)
Total cases Muslim to zimmi 206 (12%) 122 (I5%) 84 ( 9%)
Total cases zimmi to Muslim 0o2 ( 6%) 52 ( 6%) 50 ( 5%)
TableVII
Zimmis(non-Muslims)
at Court:KayseriandElsewhere
Total cases Z-Z Z-Z
Sicil Year Total involving Zimmi vs. Muslim vs. Zimmi vs. % of % of
no. cases zimmis % Muslima zimmia zimmia zimmisd totale
11 1603-4 421 122 29% 32 40 5? 41% I2%
I2 I604-8 3338 390 I2% 64 88 238 61% 7%
13 I604-9 6oi 86 14% 23 27 36 42% 6%
14 60o5-8 479 8I I7% I9 I7 45 56% 9%
15 i6o8-io 1191 243 20% 35 82 I26 52% 11%
I7 I613-14 444 117 26% 14 36 67 57% 15%
20 1616-19 827 258 3I% 27 87 144 56% I7%
22 1620-2I 860 i68 20% 24 40 I04 62% 12%
23 I622-23 875 215 25% 3? 5? I35 63% 15%
24 I622-23 450 131 29% I0 45 76 58% 17%
25 1624 589 II6 20% 12 40 64 55% II%
27b 1626-27 518 I6o 31% II 49 100 63% 19%
10593 2087 20% 301 (I4%) 6oi (29%) 1185 (57%) II%
Amasya-I
I624-26 304 24 8% 3 I3 8
Karaman 2-278
I6i8 248 0 0% 0 o 0
Trabzon 42-I82IbC
1618-20 363 53 I5% 19 I8 I6
915 77 8% 22 3 24 ( 3%)
Total II5o8
11
603--14)6447
(I603-1614) 6447 039
Io39 6% I87
16% 87(I8%)
8%) 8%)
290 (28%) 56 (54%)
562 54%) 8.7%
8.7%
20-27
(I616-1627) 419 1048 25% II4 (II%) 3II (30%) 623 (59%) I5%
ZIMMIS IN OTTOMANRECORDS 293
a = initiator; not necessarily a contested case.

b = The whole sicil was not read; figures pertain only to the part read.
c = excludes cases involving the appointment of vekils to arrange marriages. Of 49I total
cases, 69 (14%) involved one zimmi.
d = i.e., % of those cases involving zimmis in which both parties are zimmis.
e = i.e., % of total cases in which both parties are zimmis.
Table VIII
Population in nefer (taxable adult males) of the provinci (sancak) of Kayseri in is8S, by
districts (nahiye).
(For total population multiply the number of nefer times 3 or 3.5)
Total Zimmi Muslim
City
Kayseri 825I I8i6 6435 z = 22% of city
Nahiye
Sahra 3453 1148 2305
Koramaz 4255 2825 I430 z = 36% of villagers
Cebel Ali u Ercis 2099 1361 738 (30% of rural population)
Kenar-i irmak 1187 319 868
Kara Kaya iio6 0 I1o6
Kara Tag 1240 o 1240
Miliye (?) 402 0 402
Yukaru Islamlu 994 o 994
Kostere I204 40 164
Danismendlu cemaet 2993 o 2993
(tribe, not district)
15,940 5693 I0,247 (not incl. Danismendlu)
Total in nahiyes
18,933 13,240 (incl. Danismendlu)
Total (sancak) 24,19I 7509 16,682 (not incl. Danismendlu)
27,184 zimmis I9,675 (incl. Danismendlu)
24%
urban
76% z = 31% of sancak population
rural (28% including
Danismendlu)

Jennings - Zimmi Kayseri

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Jennings - Zimmi Kayseri

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Zimmis (Non-Muslims) in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of

ZIMMIS (NON-MUSLIMS) IN EARLY

THE ZIMMI (DHIMMI,NON-MUSLIM)POPULATIONOF KAYSERI*)

The zimmi (dhimmi, non-Muslim) population of Kayseri city and

(Rum); there is no evidence of any Jews. The population of the city

of the merit system4). Banditry, brigandage, and depredations by

4) See for exampleHalil Inalcik, TheOttomanEmpire:theClassicalAge, I300-I600,

5) A document dated 2 Cumadi I IoI9 ( 6 o) but registered after 9 Cumadi II

zimmi population of Kayseri should be able to bear the tax burden

THE PLIGHT OF THE ZIMMIS OF KAYSERI

Simeon of Poland, an Armenian, travelled widely between i608

(I608-I 619), tr. Hrand Andreasyan,Istanbul,

5 or 6 years many people have been dispersed because of the depredations of

The number of tax-payingmale adult zimmis in 1583, the last com-

i. The Amount of Ciye

The per capita cizye paid in Kayseriincreasedsharplybetween I605

1020. I615 (1024)-17 II2-I; 5 Rebi II I023. I617 (ioz6)-Karaman I 72-I; io

I9) OmerLiitfiBarkan,XV ve XVIinci asirlarda

Apparently young Osman's advisers were not satisfied with what

22) 20 190-I; 15 Zilkade 1027.

Kadis, imperialofficialssent to collect the cizye, and sometimes even

24) The traditionalIslamicdistinctionsbetween thejizya (cizye) and kharaj(harac),

tunities to do so. The considerableinternalmigrationmade it virtually

A few cases may be set forward to illustrate the kinds of exemption

3. MoneyRatios& thePaymentof Cizye

Conversionto Islam was a simple procedure.One simply was exalted

A few instancesof simple conversion of zimmis to Islam are recorded

MustafaDede bn Gazi and Abdul-Vehhab qelebi bn Seydi Ahmed: Serkis v. Huda

Two instances occured of conversion from one faith to another

Some of the problems of converting from Christianityto Islam can

Nevertheless, converts (ibn Abdullah) commonly associated with

The question of the acceptance of converts by born Muslims has

One of the main problems brought to court by Muslim converts

have provided a refuge and the Muslim community seems to have

MONEY LENDING, CREDIT, AND ZIMMIS

It has been shown in detail elsewhere that, contraryto the modern

The sicils of Kayseri were land and property registration books.

of psychology is involved when a zimmi minority accumulates a

35) R. Jennings, "Women in early I7th century Ottoman judicial revords-

I. Use of the Shariacourt

i. Use of the Sharia court

20% of over IO,500 cases examined involved at least one zimmi,

a. increase in the percentage of zimmis using the court. In sicils

A more noticeabledecline occurredin the percentageof cases initiated

why zimmi use of the court increasedso, however, cannot be answered.

All disputes with zimmis were supposed to be settled in court,

3. Zimmi Claims againstMuslims

Bulbul v. Minnet ik Lutfullah bn Bali: A donkey is restored to Bulbul after Lut-

ably it was standardpracticefor zimmis, knowing their disadvantage,

2. Muslims testify on behalf of zimmis

39) Dizdag lists 115 fetvas of Ebussuud relating to zimmis (gayri-Muslimler),

or even all the suhudul-halwere usually zimmis42). Similarly,when an

42) 22 38-6; 9 Muharrem 1031. 25 95-4; 29 Cumadi II I034. 27 40-3; i8 Ramazan

52) 22 5-3; I6 Sevval I030.

A number of these petitions were directed from members of the

Spahis and janissariessometimes treated zimmis arrogantly,partic-

Bandits and brigands were particularly dreaded, and sometimes

of Enderlik village came to court and complained of oppression: This year

Io. Zimmis vs. )immis

12. Zimmis and Islamic family law

Divorce on the initiative of zimmi women also occurred,the Islamic

to mehr,nafaka'-i'iddet,and other Zevciyyet, and I gave her 4 gurus payment

As the firmansdescribedbelow indicate, sometimes Muslim author-

A few cases give referenceto the foundation and operation of evkaf