In 1889, Sadık and Züleyha, a Roma Muslim couple, sought to purchase waqf land in the Yenibahçe meadow in Istanbul. To avoid resistance from local residents, they disguised themselves as refugees from Bulgaria, because the 1881 census reform had removed the Muslim “Gypsy” (Ḳibṭī) category from census sheets and identity cards.Footnote 1 However, neighbors discovered their true identity and initiated a legal proceeding to cancel the transaction. The authorities faced a difficult decision, because they sought collective representation of Muslims from various ethnicities in this era. After an extended bureaucratic process, a majority of the Internal Affairs Section of the Council of State (Şura-yı Devlet Dahiliyye Da’iresi) members chose to cancel the Roma couple’s land transaction. In contrast, the minority members viewed this as an opportunity to integrate the Muslim “Gypsies” into the dominant cultural framework. They supported Sadık and Züleyha’s settlement in the Yenibahçe neighborhood (maḥalle).Footnote 2
This article offers a microhistorical case study.Footnote 3 It investigates the sociohistorical processes related to Ottoman modernity that prepared the ground for the actors in this case. Key themes include land commodification, the 1881 census reform, and the diverse discursive forms of Ottoman Orientalism utilized by members of the Internal Affairs Section of the Council of State.
This paper is inspired by recent discussions on modernity, approaching the studied empirical materials from a nuanced perspective. Modernity has never been homogenous, consistent, or linear; it is a conflictual, multifaceted, and “glocal” process. The waves of modernization that originated in Europe brought distinctive patterns of thought, expression, representation, management, agency, production, and consumption. These waves resonated with various localities worldwide, in which local actors interacted with them selectively and creatively, leading to a diversity of modernization trajectories.Footnote 4 Furthermore, non-state actors and subaltern groups participated in this process by resisting, appropriating, or absorbing global flows.Footnote 5
The state side of Ottoman modernity was marked by various reforms to address the challenges of a rapidly transforming world. During the Tanzimat era (1839–76), bureaucrats implemented legal, administrative, and educational reforms designed to centralize the economy and the political structure. A new state discourse emerged, known as Ottomanism, which sought to protect subjects—initially focusing on non-Muslim Ottomans—from nationalist ideologies and strengthen the state’s internal structure against external threats. Although traditional discourse emphasized the superiority of Muslims, it also recognized the protected status and nonterritorial autonomy of non-Muslim communities.Footnote 6 Ottomanism, embodying a form of Ottoman patriotism, sought to establish a new social compact based on loyalty to the dynasty as the foundation of citizenship.Footnote 7
The concept of equality put forth by the discourse of Ottomanism was limited in scope; it did not take women into account and primarily aimed at diminishing separatist tendencies rather than addressing everyday inequalities.Footnote 8 Many members of the ruling elite and intellectuals continued to uphold the legitimacy of Muslim privileges. Recently, a new form of ethnic consciousness had emerged, positioning Turks as the ruling nation and relegating non-Turkish Muslims to a subordinate status.Footnote 9 Despite this, the Tanzimat reforms sparked discontent among Muslims who were dissatisfied with the rhetoric surrounding religious equality.Footnote 10 In the late 19th century, the discourse of Ottomanism began to decline alongside the loss of European territories, and the ruling elite shifted their focus toward the concept of Ottoman Muslim unity, or Islamism, which sought to curb the rise of nationalism among Ottoman Muslims, especially during the Hamidian era (c. 1878–1908).Footnote 11
Recent scholarship has challenged the idea that Ottoman modernity was exclusively a top-down initiative orchestrated by the ruling elite.Footnote 12 Non-state actors were not merely passive recipients of state policies but actively engaged with and sought to benefit from these changes. They closely monitored the 19th-century reforms introduced by the Ottoman state, which included the establishment of new governing institutions as well as innovative practices in military conscription and tax collection. These groups endeavored to leverage these transformations to improve their livelihoods.Footnote 13 Similarly, Roma and other peripatetic groups were part of this dynamic. Although they have been disproportionately underrepresented in the growing literature on grassroots modernization, they, too, actively experienced the impacts of modernity.
Peripatetic groups, such as the Roma, Tebers, Dom, and Loms, mobile populations subsisting on trades of crafts and services and often collectively referred to as “Gypsies,” held a distinct status within the Ottoman Empire.Footnote 14 Ottoman society was traditionally stratified by two main classes: the tax-exempt military class (`askerī) and the class of taxpayers (re`āyā), which included privileged Muslim taxpayers and non-Muslims.Footnote 15 “Gypsies” primarily belonged to the taxpaying class, although a small minority participated in auxiliary military units and paid a poll tax commonly known as cizye (Arabic, jizya), because levying typical land or herd taxes on them was impractical due to their minimal possessions.Footnote 16 The classification of this tax as cizye was contentious, because it was traditionally imposed on non-Muslims as a marker of their subordinate status in Muslim-ruled territories.Footnote 17 Notably, peripatetic individuals liable for cizye could not evade this tax even if they converted to Islam, because Muslim “Gypsies” also were subject to it.Footnote 18 However, the state did grant exemptions from cizye for individuals or households that distanced themselves from their communities, adopted a sedentary lifestyle in Muslim-majority neighborhoods, and gained recognition from their neighbors as sincere Muslims paying ordinary taxes.Footnote 19 Records indicate instances of evicted “Gypsy” settlements during the 17th and 18th centuries; however, evidence of land restrictions barring “Gypsy” individuals and households from settling in Muslim neighborhoods is lacking.Footnote 20 The case of Sadık and Züleyha and other examples from the 19th century seem to reflect a new context shaped by land commodification.
The 19th century marked a gradual development of private land ownership and increased commercial land divisions. The steady influx of population driven by the integration of empires into the global economy, coupled with land losses, heightened the demand for land. In response, usufruct owners often subdivided agricultural waqf lands to sell to third parties for residential development, creating new neighborhoods. This process played a significant role in the urbanization of Istanbul during the 19th century. Under these circumstances, the presence of lower-status groups—including those referred to as “Gypsies”—was perceived as detrimental to the dignity of land, mainly because it was seen as undermining the interests of investors by diminishing the land’s exchange value.
The 19th-century reforms significantly influenced the relationship between the Ottoman state and peripatetic groups. The cizye tax, which was imposed on non-Muslims and those classified as “Gypsies” became linked to their exemption from military service as the Ottoman army gradually instituted a system of generalized conscription in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.Footnote 21 In 1856, the cizye was rebranded as the military tax (bedel-i `askerī) when part of the reforms aimed at altering the legal norms that treated Muslims and non-Muslims unequally. Non-Muslim “Gypsies” were required to pay this military tax, whereas Muslims continued to pay mal-i maktu` (a fixed tax, equivalent to the cizye for Muslim “Gypsies”). In 1866, the Ottoman state consolidated these revenues into a general “Gypsy” tax.Footnote 22 Subsequently, in 1873, the Ottoman government abolished the exemption for Muslim “Gypsies” from military service to bolster the army’s human resources. This change also meant that they were no longer liable for the “Gypsy” tax, which had historically underpinned their separate registration for centuries.Footnote 23
The 1881 census was a significant step forward in the Ottoman Empire’s registration efforts. Previous censuses in 1831 and 1849 had focused primarily on calculating the human resources available for military service and tax contributions, with classifications—Muslims, Christians, Jews, and “Gypsies”—inherited from earlier state records that documented taxpaying units and their taxable assets. In contrast, the 1881 census included women and employed modern counting techniques. The new census terminology reflected the Hamidian era’s policy trends, which strongly emphasized Muslim unity. Non-Muslims were categorized in subgroups, whereas Muslims were treated as a collective entity. The decision to remove the designation of “Gypsy” from the Muslim category aligned with the discourse of Muslim unity, as there was no longer a need for separate registration because Muslim “Gypsies” were no longer subject to a distinct tax. Leveraging this new census policy, Sadık and Züleyha sought alternative housing opportunities within the neighboring Muslim community by concealing their origins. However, they could not prevent their case from being brought before the authorities by dissenting neighbors.
The Internal Affairs Section of the Council of State convened to address the ongoing conflict. A majority of the members advocated for cancellation of the transaction, citing the dissatisfaction among residents of the Emin-i Cev neighborhood and the prolonged separation of “Gypsies” in distinct areas. Conversely, a minority proposed the idea of gradually integrating Muslim “Gypsies” into Muslim-majority neighborhoods, viewing this as a means to helping them assimilate mainstream values. The different factions employed varied discursive strategies, which can be categorized as inclusive and conservative Orientalist. These approaches were not spontaneously developed but rather drawn from the established discursive framework of the council.
Within Ottoman historiography, many studies utilize scale reduction as an analytical tool to examine broad sociohistorical phenomena by honing in on microsocial fabrics.Footnote 24 This study serves as another example of this literature. It illuminates the impact of land commodification, new census procedures, and the evolving Orientalist discourses among Ottoman bureaucrats. The study begins by reconstructing a historical case, providing a detailed account of the interactions and encounters among various actors. Following this, it contextualizes the macroprocesses that laid the groundwork for the encounters between these actors, effectively expanding the case.
I encountered the case during a random research session using the keyword “Ḳibṭī” in the digital database of the state archives in Istanbul (Directorate of State Archives, Ottoman Archives). The summary of a folder from the Council of State documents (ŞD.753.27) prompted further investigation. The efforts of Sadık and Züleyha to relocate from Sulukule and the subsequent cancellation of transactions following the revelation of their identities appeared particularly noteworthy. The folder contained several key documents, including a petition signed by the residents, mukhtars, and imams of the Emin-i Cev neighborhood; a vizierial note from the Grand Vizier Mehmed Kamil Pasha; an identity memorandum for Sadık and Züleyha issued by the imam of the Neslişah Sultan neighborhood that encompassed Sulukule; a report from the first inspector of the third municipal district, al-Hacc Mahmud; and the deputy mayor’s response to the vizierial note.
The documents in the main folder were inadequate for a complete reconstruction of the case; consequently, supplementary documents were essential. The correspondence between the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the municipality, as recorded in the corresponding secretary of internal affairs documents (DH.MKT.1677.77), reveals the implementation following the Council of State decision. The official report from the Internal Affairs Section of the Council of State, found in the Grand Vezirate’s Council of State Documents (A_}MKT.ŞD.92.37.1.1), provides insights into both minority and majority views. The folders within the Council of State documents (ŞD.15.13) and in the imperial decrees, Council of State documents (İ.ŞD.54.3023) offer extensive information regarding the investments of landowner Mehmed Efendi. Furthermore, the waqf registries (EV.d.18417), court registries, Ottoman-era and republican-era newspapers, and testimonies from contemporary Ottoman and foreign observers furnish essential background information illustrating the conditions in Sulukule during the 19th century.
The second level of historical reconstruction involves revealing the broader macroprocesses at play in the case of Sadık and Züleyha. Numerous recent studies have examined land commodification and the evolution of private property in the late Ottoman Empire. This article establishes the relevant context primarily through these secondary sources. Additionally, files obtained from the Council of State documents in the Ottoman Archives (ŞD.726.1.3.1-ŞD.2931.40.1.1) present a valuable case involving another Roma family that sought permission for housing in a non-Roma settlement, only to have their request denied for reasons similar to those faced by Sadık and Züleyha.
The documents from the Yıldız Palace Grand Vezirate (Y.PRK.8.78) and the Grand Vezirate Divan Office Regulations (A}DVN.MKL.20.35) provide valuable insights into the characteristics of the 1881 census reform. Additionally, materials from the Council of State (ŞD.2501.19) and the corresponding secretary of internal affairs (DH.MKT.632.19), along with a summary of the relevant decision by the Reform Legislation Section of the Council of State in the Sublime Port ministries incoming and outgoing documents (BEONGG.d.610), detail the process behind the registration of Muslim “Gypsies” alongside Muslims in 1886.
The section concerning Ottoman Orientalism and the Council of State references various documents. Notable are the consecutive decisions made by the Internal Affairs Section in 1872 (Council of State Documents of the Grand Vezirate-A}MKT.ŞD.11.57.2.1) and in 1873 (Imperial Decrees, Special Council Documents-I.MMS.47.2005.1.3), which address the exemption of “Gypsies” from military service and exemplify earlier instances of both conservative and inclusive Orientalist discourses. State yearbooks proved helpful in identifying the exact roster of section members across various periods. Biographies of bureaucrats were compiled from the Sicill-i Osmani by Mehmed Süreyya Bey, along with officer records from the internal affairs (DH.SAID.d) and the Council of State documents (ŞD.SAID.d).
The Case
Sadık and Züleyha were a Roma couple. Sadık was born and raised in Sulukule in H. 1265 (1848/49), one of two sons of Ahmed Cihan. Züleyha, the daughter of Mehmed, was born in Kırklareli in H. 1275 (1858/59) and lived with her husband in their home at number 108 on Sulukule Street.Footnote 25 Sulukule had a unique reputation; although often associated with negative stereotypes of the “Gypsy” culture as dangerous, immoral, and criminal, it also was known as a vibrant hub for music and entertainment.Footnote 26
Historical sources from the 19th and 20th centuries depict Sulukule as a settlement primarily inhabited by the Roma community in Istanbul.Footnote 27 It was a street adjacent to the Byzantine city walls, situated at the western edge of the Yenibahçe meadow. The area derives its name from the Sulukule archway, positioned between Edirnekapı (the Gate of Charisius) and Topkapı (the Gate of St. Romanus), and administratively falls within the Neslişahsultan neighborhood (Fig. 1).Footnote 28 Legal ownership of the houses on Sulukule Street belonged to the waqf of Ḳulle-i Zemīn (the land left over from the dilapidated city walls), associated with the waqf of Mehmed II (r. 1444–46, 1451–81). This waqf rented out the houses to Roma families.Footnote 29 Waqf registries refer to this location as the “Gypsy” quarter in Sulukule, indicating that there were fifty-six houses there in 1863.Footnote 30 According to the 19th-century census records, which accounted solely for males, these houses accommodated 153 males in 1845 and 183 males in 1857.Footnote 31
Figure 1. Yenibahçe meadow, Roma settlement in Sulukule, and Köprübaşı Street. Istanbul Municipality City Guide Maps, 1918; see Directorate of State Archives, Ottoman Archives, Maps, Map No. 86, p. 4.
Sadık’s father, Ahmed Cihan, was a nail-maker, one of the two primary professions in Sulukule according to population records from 1844/45 (H. 1260) and 1856/57 (H. 1273), the other being basketmaking.Footnote 32 Nail-makers were more prominent in the community, and a French traveler from that era described the residents of Sulukule as a tribe of blacksmiths.Footnote 33 Subsequent notes recorded by officers updating the population records indicate a gradual transformation in occupational roles. For example, in 1862, Edhem, the son of nail-maker `Abdi, became a musician, and Mehmed, the son of nail-maker `Ali, followed suit in 1868.Footnote 34 Tahir, the son of basketmaker Ibiş, was noted as a nail-maker in 1845, and Süleyman, the son of Hüseyin, a basketmaker in 1845, transitioned to nail-making in 1857.Footnote 35 Osman, the son of Tahir, originally a basketmaker in 1845, worked as a boatman between 1845 and 1857.Footnote 36 Rıf`at, the son of Hasan, who was a nail-maker in 1857, later became a chair manufacturer and repairer in 1872.Footnote 37 The first half of the 20th century witnessed the emergence of mat production, chair manufacturing and repair, chicken-selling, and musicianship.Footnote 38
Sadık conformed to the shifting landscape of occupational change. As the son of a nail-maker, he was working as a peddler in 1889 (in Istanbul, small wares and fabric peddlers were often called çerçi).Footnote 39 A contemporary observer, Paspati, describes peddling as a thriving trade and suggests that peddlers could accumulate significant savings by working on credit with buyers.Footnote 40 It appears that Sadık was good at his trade and aspired to relocate to a more favorable settlement, leveraging his earnings.
In the late 19th century, Sulukule had become a crowded settlement, with homes becoming increasingly cramped and dilapidated, necessitating new housing solutions.Footnote 41 In 1893, the residents petitioned the Ministry of Internal Affairs to seek authorization for constructing new homes on vacant lots.Footnote 42 Before this, Sadık and Züleyha tried to enhance their living conditions by relocating to the neighboring Emin-i Cev neighborhood in Yenibahçe.
Meanwhile, the urban fabric around Sulukule had undergone significant changes as well. Most relevant to our story was the investment of one Mehmed Efendi. He had transformed a plot of land owned by the waqf of Sultan Bayezid II (r. 1481–1512) into a residential area. The imperial waqfs, established by sultans, dynasty members, and members of the higher bureaucracy, controlled vast resources that surpassed those of ordinary waqfs.Footnote 43 According to 16th-century records, agricultural lands surrounding Yenibahçe were the endowments of the waqf of Sultan Bayezid II in 1505. In the 1570s, the waqf leased thirteen market gardens to urban notables to produce crops.Footnote 44
In 1878, Mehmed Efendi, the usufruct owner (muteṣarrif) of Yenibahçe meadow, which was held by the waqf, proposed a modification to the status of a portion of his land. This change would enable the division of a lot without adversely affecting the meadow. He intended to sell these sections to individuals looking to build their homes on land that had formerly been a meadow adjacent to the city walls in Sulukule but had since become an empty field. Mehmed bolstered his request by noting that “some Ḳibṭī were occupying the land by erecting shacks.” After a thorough evaluation to confirm that Mehmed Efendi satisfied all requirements, an imperial decree issued on 25 April 1881 established a new residential area and instructed the Ministry of Waqfs and the municipality to grant permits to Mehmed.Footnote 45
After eight years, in August 1889, Sadık and Züleyha sought to purchase the usufruct (mu`āmele-‘i ferāġiyye) of a 120.6-m² lot on Mehmed’s property to construct a new dwelling.Footnote 46 Sulukule was a well-known Roma settlement whose inhabitants were not always warmly received as neighbors. Aware of this, they decided to conceal their origin, even though the Hamidian reform had removed the Muslim “Gypsy” designation from identity cards and census documents. Sadık masqueraded as a coachman from Stara Zagora, a common occupation among Muslim refugees displaced from Bulgaria and Romania after the 1877–78 Russo-Turkish War.Footnote 47
Several days following the transaction, rumors surfaced within the vicinity that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the sale. Sadık and Züleyha were not refugees but “Gypsies,” having resided in Sulukule for a considerable period.Footnote 48 On 29 August 1889, the imam, the first and second mukhtars, and ten inhabitants of Emin-i Cev neighborhood jointly submitted a petition to the grand vizier’s office.Footnote 49 The discontent of the petitioners stemmed not only from the newcomers’ dishonesty but also from their own bias, which fueled the belief that the presence of “Gypsies” in a Muslim neighborhood would have a negative impact:
Those Gypsies are not ehl-i perde; they have been living by ramparts in Sulukule since the reign of heavenly Mehmed [II] the Conqueror. Their settling in our neighborhood with such tricks can bring about the spread of their bad traits and public murmurs and is also unacceptable according to the Islamic point of view.Footnote 50
The clerks of the Grand Vezirate reviewed and classified the petition, subsequently presenting its summary to the grand vizier as part of their daily routine.Footnote 51 On September 1, 1889, two days after the arrival of the petition of the Emin-i Cev neighborhood inhabitants, Mehmet Kamil Pasha, the grand vizier, instructed the municipality to investigate the petitioner’s request and take appropriate action.Footnote 52 The third municipal district conducted a local investigation into the claims made in the petition. The first step was to examine Sadık and Züleyha’s identity cards for any indication of their “Gypsy” heritage, but there was no evidence confirming the claim. They then consulted Hidayet Efendi, the imam of the Neşlişah Sultan neighborhood, which included the Sulukule street.Footnote 53 Hidayet confirmed that the couple was of “Gypsy” origin and had been residing in Sulukule for an extended period. Interestingly, the imam also explained why there were no origin records on the identity cards, stating that the General Administration of Population Registration had instructed local authorities not to use the term “Gypsy” for Muslims who were previously registered as such.Footnote 54
The initial inspector of the third municipal district, el-Hacc Mahmud, submitted the investigation findings to the municipality. Subsequently, the deputy mayor, Mehmed, provided a detailed report to the grand vizier, Mehmed Kamil Pasha.Footnote 55 On October 17, 1889, the vizier assigned the Council of State to assess the matter.Footnote 56
The Tanzimat reformers, following the abolition of the Supreme Council of Judicial Ordinances in 1868, established the Council of State and the Council of Judicial Ordinances. The Council of State was intended to serve as the central authority for administrative decision-making.Footnote 57 Its formation held symbolic significance, because the founders sought to ensure a balanced representation of both Muslims and non-Muslims and key figures from both the central bureaucracy and provincial notables.Footnote 58 The internal regulations of the council, established in 1869, outlined the responsibilities of the Internal Affairs Section. This section was tasked with reviewing regulation drafts from various state bodies, providing opinions on matters assigned by the ministries of internal affairs and education, and making decisions regarding the appointment and removal of administrative officials.Footnote 59
The Internal Affairs Section of the Council of State convened with five members absent to deliberate on the case involving Sadık and Züleyha. They issued their official report on November 5, 1889. A predominantly conservative perspective prevailed, drawing on the widely held belief that “Gypsies” had historically (mine’l-ḳadīm) lived in isolated communities and that Muslim neighbors were often resistant to coexistence with them. The majority viewed the dissatisfaction expressed by the hosts as significant, leading to the decision to terminate the usufruct transfer.Footnote 60
The members who advocated for the majority view included several notable figures from families connected to the central bureaucracy, among them Ahmed İzzeddin Bey, the second head of the section and son of `Abdulhamid Ferid Pasha, the marshal of the palace secretariat; `Ali Rıza Bey, the son of Seyda Bey, the important affairs director at the Imperial Divan; Bekir Sıddık, the son of `Ali Şahab Efendi, the secretary of internal affairs; and `Abdurrahman Sami, the son of the former trade minister, Subhi Pasha.Footnote 61 Additionally, Şerif `Abdullah Pasha, hailing from Mecca’s ruling family, and Mehmed Faik, the son of Ibrahim Pasha—nephew to Egypt’s governor Mehmet `Ali Pasha—represented notable provincial origins.Footnote 62 Finally, Halil `Akif Efendi, a seasoned bureaucrat, had served as the undersecretary of the Ministry of Finance before becoming a member of the Council of State in 1889.Footnote 63
Four attendees presented a counterview to the seven members mentioned above during the meeting. The minority expressed their support for merging Muslim “Gypsies” with other Muslims under specific conditions:
Four voters argued that there was no harm in accepting scattered Gypsies honored by the honor of Islam, into Muslim neighborhoods, provided they did not contradict national morality (ahlāḳ-ı milliyye) and Islamic observances (adāb-ı İslāmiyye). It was also possible that they could gradually improve their situation and morality by adapting to Islamic observances. Therefore, [they] approved [the couple’s] settlement in the above-mentioned place.Footnote 64
The advocates of the minority perspective came from relatively modest family backgrounds, including the declining Tanzimat elite and provincial notables. Ahmed Lütfi Efendi, the son of a slipper-maker, advanced through various ranks after receiving a traditional education, ultimately becoming the state chronicler in 1866.Footnote 65 Mehmed Aziz Bey was the son of the former Hijaz governor Vecihi Mehmed Paşa, who had held gubernatorial positions in several provinces, including Aleppo and Baghdad.Footnote 66 Mehmed Nureddin Bey was the grandson of Tanzimat reformer Mustafa Reşid Pasha and the son of Salih Mehmed Rauf Bey, a member of the Supreme Council.Footnote 67 The youngest of this minority group, Mehmed Sa`id Halim Pasha, was just twenty-five years old, the son of Halim Pasha and the grandson of Egypt’s governor Mehmed `Ali Pasha. He would later establish a prominent career in the early 20th century. Following the 1908 revolution, he emerged as a significant figure in the second constitutional era and was appointed grand vizier in 1913. Sa`id Halim Pasha sought to balance the secular Turkish nationalist tendencies within the Committee of Union and Progress with Islamist-modernist perspectives.Footnote 68
Despite the arguments presented by the proponents of the minority view, the majority ultimately voted to cancel the transaction. By standard procedure, the official report from the Internal Affairs Section was submitted to the Ministry of the Interior (Dāḫīliyye Neẓāret-i Celīlesi), accompanied by an order for execution (bā-buyuruldı-‘ı `ālī).Footnote 69 The Ministry of the Interior then instructed the municipality to carry out the necessary tasks accordingly.Footnote 70
The available sources do not provide further details about subsequent Sadık and Züleyha events. However, the previously mentioned encounters among various individuals offer sufficient insight to broaden the discussion, including the macroprocesses that shaped the environment in which the actors met and interacted.
Land Commodification in the Late Ottoman Empire
A growing body of literature has addressed the transition from traditional Ottoman land use patterns to private property during the 19th century. This process marked a gradual introduction of individual property rights into the Ottoman legal system.Footnote 71 The case of Sadık and Züleyha exemplifies the social dynamics driven by this transformation, particularly the commodification of waqf lands, and this analysis contributes to ongoing discussions surrounding this topic.Footnote 72
Long-term leasing through icāreteyn (double rent) and muḳāṭa`a were common land uses of waqf lands for centuries.Footnote 73 Renters would make a down payment (mu`accele) and pay a monthly or yearly fee (mu‘eccele). Although renters had unlimited access to buildings and plants on the land in the muḳāṭa`a system and could claim ownership, waqfs retained ownership of buildings, plants, and the land in the icāreteyn. Footnote 74 For centuries, the transfer of waqf properties relied on the principle of ferāġ, which allowed usufruct holders to sell their rights to third parties if trustees approved and there were no violations of endowment interests. Usufructuary right owners could divide (ifrāz) waqf properties and sell each share.Footnote 75 In addition, if they met specific criteria, usufruct owners could convert agricultural or empty lands into residential areas by division. The transformation of waqf territories into residential areas through land division began at the request of right-holders or local authorities, and a sultanic decree was required.Footnote 76
During the 19th century, usufruct transfers became increasingly popular, leading lawmakers to revise legislation to address the complexities of land disputes. As usufruct owners sought to divide and sell their land in state-monitored and extra-state markets, land and land access rights became commodified.Footnote 77 This shift was primarily driven by the population growth experienced in Ottoman cities and fueled by various modernity-related factors, such as Muslim refugees from territories that had become independent nation–states and foreigners seeking investment opportunities and employment in Ottoman cities.Footnote 78 The new state regulations created a more favorable legal framework for this process.Footnote 79
The increase in land transactions and the commodification of waqf lands transformed usufruct owners’ perception of land value. Investors expressed significant concerns that unforeseen incidents could jeopardize their interests. In this context, local inhabitants grew increasingly wary of newcomers from less privileged segments of society, such as the Roma people. Historically, the state and Muslim neighbors were more accepting of families previously designated as “Gypsy,” provided they adhered to Islamic practices, including prayers, dress codes, and social separation of the sexes, while also fulfilling their tax obligations and distancing themselves from their group affiliations.Footnote 80 However, cases from the 19th century suggest that these sociocultural shifts no longer elicited the same acceptance from Muslim neighbors, who feared that the “Gypsy” heritage of newcomers could negatively impact their neighborhood’s status and land values. In this regard, the situation of Şakir, a Roma blacksmith, closely resembles that of Sadık and Züleyha.
Şakir had previously acquired the usufruct rights to a parcel of land on Behram Street in Bakırköy (Makri) and sought to construct a building there, contingent upon the approval of relevant legal authorities. This former Greek village was on the verge of becoming an urban center, with planned divisions and the sale of waqf lands predominantly used for agricultural purposes. Upon applying to the district municipality, Şakir encountered strong opposition from neighbors who openly voiced their concerns: “The neighbors petitioned for action, signed by eight people, stating that allowing [Şakir] to build a house would diminish the neighborhood’s honor.”Footnote 81
The concept of honor (şeref) referenced by the petitioners above was multifaceted, encompassing both moral values and the monetary worth of the land. According to Eda Güçlü, usufruct owners frequently employed this terminology when voicing their grievances or discussing changes in the value of their real estate holdings. In a similar vein, the Ottoman state imposed a specific tax known as şerefiyye on landowners whenever there was an increase in land value due to improvements in infrastructure, street layout, or residential opportunities.Footnote 82 The primary motivation for rallying the neighbors against Şakir’s investment stemmed from their concerns about property values.
The Internal Affairs Section of the Council of State announced its decision regarding the case in an official report dated July 7, 1887. The report stated, “It is imperative to prevent the Gypsy group from settling in other neighborhoods, as they have historically resided in separate areas.”Footnote 83 Conceding the rationale behind this decision, Şakir submitted a petition to the Ministry of Internal Affairs proposing an alternative solution: he would construct a house but not occupy it himself, instead renting it out to a third party for income.Footnote 84 The Internal Affairs Section reviewed the case again and deemed this proposal acceptable, provided that Sadık signed a deed affirming he would not reside there.Footnote 85
The case of Şakir underscores a common sensitivity among state officials and neighbors, who aimed to prevent any decrease in land values within their communities. This concern primarily arose from land commodification during the late Ottoman Empire. Understanding this context, Sadık and Züleyha attempted to pose as refugees. The census reform of 1881 facilitated this effort because the designation of Muslim “Gypsy” was removed from registries and identity cards.
The New Census Terminology and Muslim “Gypsies”
The Ottoman state relied on registries to resolve disputes over conflicting identity claims. For centuries, referees would refer to state records of “Gypsy” households to settle disagreements between tax farmers and those subjected to the “Gypsy” tax. However, in the 1881 census, the Ottoman state discontinued the separate registration of “Gypsies” until it was reintroduced in a different form during the 1905 census.
The Ottomans had a longstanding registration tradition.Footnote 86 However, there were procedural differences between premodern registration systems and modern censuses. Previous Ottoman registers (tahrīr) had primarily focused on taxpayers and their resources rather than the entire population. With the empire’s implementation of a general conscription system in the late 18th and 19th centuries, knowing the male population of each family who could serve in the army became imperative. Therefore the earliest 19th-century censuses counted Ottoman males. During the Tanzimat era, the state took a more active role in delivering services such as education, health care, and sanitation, necessitating a more accurate understanding of the population for effective resource allocation.Footnote 87 As a result, the Ottoman state adopted modern census procedures, establishing institutions inspired by Western data collection methods, counting the female population, and revising census terminology in response to the evolving international political landscape.Footnote 88
In the 19th century, the terminology used in censuses, particularly regarding religious and ethnic categories, acquired significant importance. Religious affiliation began to play a pivotal role in the formation of emerging national identities during this period.Footnote 89 The Ottoman state grew concerned about maintaining the demographic balance of Muslims within the population. This anxiety intensified as global powers and nationalist movements positioned themselves as protectors of non-Muslim Ottomans, using population statistics to assert territorial claims. The Treaties of San Stefano and Berlin in 1878, which followed the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78, were particularly significant; they prompted new reforms in predominantly Christian regions and required a determination of demographic data regarding the proportions of Muslims and non-Muslims in contentious areas.Footnote 90 Under these historical circumstances, during the Abdulhamid era, the administration’s approach to the census shifted in 1881. For the first time, census designers included women and introduced ethnic categories to represent non-Muslims’ linguistic and cultural diversity. In contrast, Muslims were categorized under a single designation, irrespective of their ethnic diversity, and the term “Muslim Gypsies” was excluded from the census terminology.Footnote 91
The removal of the term “Muslim Gypsy” from census classifications was influenced both by the aforementioned census policy and by developments in the 19th century regarding the relationship between peripatetic communities and the Ottoman state. In the early 19th century, censuses generally featured traditional religious categories such as Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Armenians, and Jews, with the “Gypsy” category standing as an exception.Footnote 92 Ottoman officials separately registered “Gypsies,” whereas ethnic references to the division of creeds were infrequent in both pre-19th-century and early 19th-century censuses.Footnote 93 This unique registration practice stemmed from the state’s taxation of “Gypsies” as cizye payers, regardless of their faith. However, with the series of reforms enacted during the 19th century, Muslim “Gypsies” were allowed to serve in the Ottoman army and were subsequently exempt from paying cizye or military taxes. As a result, the separate registration of peripatetic groups registered as “Gypsies” became impractical.
The “Gypsy” agency played a role in shaping the state’s approach to incorporating Muslim “Gypsies” within the larger Muslim community. The 1881 census regulations were apparent in the separate registration of Muslims and non-Muslims, with the latter being further divided into ethnic and confessional groups.Footnote 94 As a result, the non-Muslim “Gypsy” category was still present in the census records and final tallies.Footnote 95 However, earlier documents did not provide clear guidance on accounting for Muslim “Gypsies” in previous censuses, leading to confusion among census officials.
In certain instances, law enforcement officers insisted on labeling Muslim individuals as “Gypsies,” which sparked a response from the affected community, whose members recognized the potential advantages of new regulations and demanded their prompt implementation. On January 7, 1886, the Administration of Population Registration (Sicil-i Nufūs İdāresi) solicited the advice of the Council of State regarding the status of Muslim “Gypsies” who refused to be classified as such on their identification cards.Footnote 96 The Reform Legislation Section (Tanẓīmāt Da´iresi) of the Council of State assessed the matter. It issued an official report (mażbaṭa) on January 28, 1886, which proposed that Muslim “Gypsies” no longer be registered as “Gypsies.” The reform legislation department’s resolution went even further and mandated the registration of non-Muslim “Gypsies” under the non-Muslim community to which they belonged.Footnote 97
The individuals at the center of this case, Sadık and Züleyha, benefited from the decision made by the reform legislation department in 1886 to expand spatial boundaries.Footnote 98 However, they had to be cautious and adopt a camouflage strategy. Despite having no evidence of their “Gypsy” background on their identification cards, they could still face backlash from neighbors. To avoid this, they crafted a fake identity narrative and presented themselves as a Muslim refugee couple when they first applied to purchase the usufruct of the mentioned lot.
The portrayal of refugees as veteran victims has been an integral part of nation-building strategies, and the late Ottoman Empire was no exception.Footnote 99 Between 1850 and 1914, millions of Muslims migrated to Anatolia from Caucasia and the Balkans. The Ottoman state and its subjects compassionately responded to the refugees and organized extensive charitable initiatives. This response stemmed not only from Islamic principles but also from the strategic importance of these migrations in addressing demographic declines, revitalizing the economy, and reinforcing state control in various provinces through changes in demographic composition. The influx of refugees contributed to the establishment of Islamist discourse and practices, significantly altering the local demographics in favor of Muslims.Footnote 100
How did Sadık and Züleyha convince land tenure sellers that they were refugees? What challenges made identifying the Roma couple from the neighboring Sulukule difficult, leading to the need for the imam’s testimony? Initially, the Muslim refugees arriving in the Ottoman capital after the 1877–78 Russo-Turkish War were not exclusively of Turkic descent; instead, they represented a diverse mix, including Roma individuals. Reports from European war correspondents and Ottoman observers during the war and subsequent migration confirm the presence of “Gypsies” among the Muslim refugees.Footnote 101 In Istanbul, the primary reception point for these newcomers, census officers classified them as muhājir, an Islamic term referring to the earliest Muslims who emigrated from Mecca to Medina. This classification was independent of their origin and afforded them legal protection against discrimination targeting minority groups.Footnote 102
The muhājir identity encompassed elements that overlapped with the cultural characteristics of Roma refugees. This development likely caused dissatisfaction among upper-class refugees, as evidenced by the testimony of the former mufti of Stara Zagora, Hüseyin Raci Efendi. He expressed concern that the actions of “Gypsies” classified as muhājir, such as burning wooden parts of the houses they temporarily settled in for warmth, brought shame to the muhājirs.Footnote 103 Despite this discontent, the local population initially viewed certain cultural traits of the Roma as peculiarities of some Muslim war veterans in the early stages of immigration. Sadık and Züleyha attempted to leverage this common ground to settle in the new community in Yenibahçe by presenting themselves as an established muhājir family. However, rumors soon shattered this illusion by revealing their origins, prompting a process that ultimately took their case to the Internal Affairs Section of the Council of State.
The Internal Affairs Section and Orientalist Discourses
Ottoman Orientalism represents a recent contribution to Ottoman historiography.Footnote 104 According to Ussama Makdisi, the Ottoman understanding of the Turkish nation as a leader in introducing modernity to premodern national or ethnic clusters exemplifies this form of Orientalism.Footnote 105 During the 19th century, many Ottoman intellectuals and policymakers embraced the ideals of civilization (medeniyyet) and progress. They reinterpreted these concepts through the lens of the Islamic value system, positing that civilization was a prerequisite for Islam. This viewpoint further contrasted the pairing of civilization and science with the opposing duo of nomadism and ignorance.Footnote 106 As the rulers of a modernizing empire dedicated to civilizing their subjects, Ottoman bureaucrats sought to transform their population structure from an open, flexible framework to a closed, fragmented one that necessitated sedentariness. Achieving this goal required the gradual subjugation of mobile populations.Footnote 107
The influence of Western Orientalist thought on Ottoman elites became increasingly pronounced during the Hamidian and the Committee of Union and Progress periods. It shaped their discursive strategies toward provincial subjects and mobile groups, such as pastoralists and peripatetics, often depicting them as less civilized.Footnote 108 The Ottoman state’s civilizing mission toward itinerant groups, referred to as “Gypsies,” primarily focused on Islamization of their belief systems, improvement of their perceived moral inferiority, and clarification of their legal status. The ruling elite attributed the low status associated with “Gypsies” to ignorance linked to their nomadic lifestyle. Practical implementations of this vision included settlement policies, establishing schools, and assigning imams to areas inhabited by these groups.Footnote 109
The decision of the Internal Affairs Section of the Council of State sheds light on the diverse Orientalist discourses embraced by Ottoman elites. The minority who voted to allow Sadık and Züleyha to reside in the Muslim neighborhood adopted an inclusive approach. They were eager to transform the spatial segregation and harness the assimilation potential of Sunni-Muslim and Turkish-speaking Ottomans to “civilize” those considered “other.” In contrast, the majority were less inclined to extend the rhetoric of equality beyond the necessity of countering separatist tendencies. They saw no problem in maintaining distinct spaces for Muslim “Gypsies” and other Muslims, effectively preventing Sadık and Züleyha from crossing these boundaries, as they prioritized adherence to tradition and the preservation of peace within the Muslim majority.
Conservative and inclusive Orientalist discourses were present in the discursive repository of section members and were utilized for various occasions. These discourses can be traced in the decisions made by the section. Notably, two consecutive decisions regarding the exemption of Muslim “Gypsies” from conscription in 1872 and 1873 reveal the section’s support for conflicting viewpoints, drawing from both conservative and inclusive Orientalist perspectives. These divergent stances were influenced by shifts in the section’s membership composition and fluctuations in the broader political landscape.
Throughout the 19th century, shifts in power dynamics within the Ottoman ruling elite sparked the reorganization of modern institutions, such as the Council of State. Until the death of Tanzimat reformer `Ali Pasha in 1871, elements of the civil bureaucracy that operated with relative autonomy had garnered significant influence, whereas those closely tied to the palace, often through kinship, were less effective. However, following the death of Sultan `Abdulaziz in 1876 and during the reign of `Abdulhamid II, a new era of power centralization around the palace emerged.Footnote 110
Following the death of Tanzimat reformer `Ali Pasha, Mahmud Nedim Pasha took on the position of grand vizier and sought to reduce the influence of the bureaucrats appointed during the tenures of `Ali and Fuad Pashas. As a conservative, Mahmud Nedim Pasha attributed the late Ottoman state’s inefficiencies to the diminishing authority of the sultan over the expanding bureaucracy. He believed that the sultan’s intervention in state affairs was essential for a swift recovery.Footnote 111 Regarding the Council of State, his main objective was to eliminate bureaucrats appointed by the previous president of the council, Midhat Pasha, and curtail the council’s role in state administration.Footnote 112
The reorganization efforts altered the membership composition of the Internal Affairs Section. A comparison of the H. 1288 (1871/72) and H. 1289 (1872/73) State Yearbooks (Salname) reveals that nearly all members were newly appointed.Footnote 113 The H. 1288 section had a significant representation of provincial notables. However, Mahmud Nedim Pasha’s reorganization redistributed these individuals to various posts.Footnote 114 The new profile of assignees to the Internal Affairs Section in H. 1289 broadly aligned with Mahmud Nedim Pasha’s expectations, as many of the members had established connections with the palace.Footnote 115
The Internal Affairs Section, reorganized through the intervention of Mahmud Nedim Pasha, held a meeting regarding the conscription of Muslim “Gypsies” into the Ottoman army and subsequently prepared an official report dated May 1, 1872. Although the necessity of enhancing military human resources was evident, the section, influenced by the conservative grand vizier, ultimately decided against including Muslim “Gypsies” in the army. This decision was partly driven by financial concerns, as rescinding their military exemption would hinder the collection of the “Gypsy” tax.Footnote 116 Additionally, there existed a moral rationale citing the perceived inferiority of “Gypsies”:
Differentiating between individuals who genuinely possess Islamic moral values and those who merely follow traditional practices within the community can be challenging for various parties. The presence of disrespectful and immoral individuals among imperial soldiers may result in the spread of their negative behavior to other soldiers, ultimately tarnishing the military’s honor.Footnote 117
The report mentioned above reflects a conservative Orientalist discourse; however, an inclusive Orientalist perspective emerged in the Internal Affairs Section’s 1873 decision to abolish the exemption following the removal of Mahmud Nedim Pasha in July 1872.Footnote 118 The opposition to Mahmud Nedim Pasha’s policies led Sultan `Abdulaziz to dismiss him and appoint Midhat Pasha as the new grand vizier.Footnote 119 The composition of the Internal Affairs Section, which advocated for the abolition of the exemption, became more balanced, comprising both palace-affiliated bureaucrats and provincial notables.Footnote 120
The official report, dated November 1873, provides a comprehensive overview of the process that led the Internal Affairs Section to the verge of a new decision.Footnote 121 In the concluding section of the report, its members articulated that military service represented the foremost sacred duty of Muslim subjects and introduced a new position in response to the concerns raised in the previous decision:
Even though the conscription of the Ḳibṭīs has been postponed until they fully embrace morality, it is evident that they will not abandon their ugly traditions as long as they are left to their own devices. Their population is small, so their harmful temperament and customs will not spread to the other soldiers if they are recruited in small quantities. Conversely, they will gradually inevitably embrace morality by seeing the proper actions and integrity of other soldiers.Footnote 122
In 1889, the minority members of the Internal Affairs Section who chose to uphold the land transaction between Sadık and Züleyha embraced the discourse outlined above. In contrast, the majority favored a conservative Orientalist stance. These groups employed similar discursive tools as their predecessors, albeit within a new sociohistorical context, as Abdulhamid II continued to pursue the reformist agenda of the Tanzimat reformers across various domains, such as education, while simultaneously slowing the autonomous development of the Ottoman bureaucracy.Footnote 123
Conclusion
The case of Sadık and Züleyha illuminates three macroprocesses associated with Ottoman modernization: land commodification, the reform in the census policy, and the emergence of inclusive and conservative Orientalist discourses among Ottoman elites. These processes formed the backdrop for the interaction between the figures mentioned above.
The surge in housing demand during the 19th century, spurred by population growth, resulted in an extraordinary level of land commodification. Usufruct owners began carving and transferring waqf lands to third parties for residential use, converting agricultural areas into residential zones. This transition accentuated the importance of land value for usufruct owners, particularly concerning accommodating low-status Ottomans on their properties. Within this context, the resettlement efforts of Roma families, who had distanced themselves from their traditional affiliations, were met with resistance from their new neighbors despite prior instances of greater tolerance toward such individuals or families. Sadık and Züleyha were acutely attuned to these dynamics. They chose to disguise themselves as refugees displaced by the 1877–78 war, taking advantage of the new census policy that had removed the designation “Muslim Gypsy” from identification cards.
The shift in the Ottoman census policy was closely tied to a series of reforms aimed at redefining the state’s relationship with peripatetic groups. Traditionally, the Ottoman Empire levied a specific tax called cizye on peripatetics categorized as “Gypsy.” In the 19th century, this tax was linked to the exemption of non-Muslims and “Gypsies” from military service. However, as the Ottoman government sought to bolster its military by integrating Muslim “Gypsies” into its reserves in 1873, it abolished the separate “Gypsy” tax, rendering the distinct registration of Muslim “Gypsies” impractical. The 1881 census recognized the ethnic and confessional diversity among Christians while omitting ethnic classifications for Muslims, excluding the designation of “Muslim Gypsy.” In light of this policy shift, Sadık and Züleyha saw an opportunity for themselves but could not dispel the rumors that brought their case to the Internal Affairs Section of the Council of State.
The members of the Internal Affairs Section of the Council of State split into two factions while deliberating the case of Sadık and Züleyha. Inclusive and conservative Orientalist discourses, adopted by minority and majority members, were already present in the section’s discursive repository. For instance, in 1872, the Internal Affairs Section, which included members appointed by the conservative Grand Vizier Mahmud Nedim Pasha, chose not to revoke the exemption of “Gypsies” from military service. They cited concerns that the perceived moral inferiority of this group could negatively influence the soldiers and noted that collecting the “Gypsy” tax would be impractical if the exemption were lifted. However, the section, with a new composition achieved by reformist Midhat Pasha, reexamined this decision in 1873. They concluded that conscripting a small number of “Gypsies” would not be detrimental and that the influence of other soldiers might encourage them to assimilate mainstream values.
Those examining the case of Sadık and Züleyha drew on inclusive and conservative Orientalist discourses within the historical context of the Abdulhamid II era. The proponents of the majority viewpoint included several individuals from families connected to the central bureaucracy and provincial notables. In contrast, the advocates of the minority perspective emerged from relatively modest family backgrounds, including the waning Tanzimat elite and provincial figures. Whereas the majority emphasized the established spatial segregation of “Gypsies” from the broader Muslim community and prioritized the grievances of petitioners from the Emin-i Cev Neighborhood, the minority argued that coexistence with the Muslim majority could lead “Gypsies” to embrace the dominant values of the host society.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Eda Güçlü and Ali Sipahi for their valuable feedback on the initial draft of this article, which significantly guided improvements. I also appreciate the supportive and constructive feedback from Joel Gordon and the three anonymous reviewers. Their contributions were essential to the final version of the article.
Open access
