Hrišćansko zadužbinarstvo u periodu osmanske uprave

Olga Zirojević

Sažetak

Islamsko pravo dozvoljava, uz izvesna ograničenja, Jevrejima i hrišćanima osnivanje zadužbina (vakufa) po propisima svoje vere i pred svojim verskim predstavnicima.

U odnosima Osmanlija prema nemuslimani'ma (tzv. zimijama ili štićeni- cima) Serijat je bio glavni, ali ne i jedini izvor prava; bio je još kanun (odredbe sa zakonskom snagom), «?/(ustaljena praksa vrhovne uprave) i adet (običajno pravo u najširem smislu reči).

Najzad, verska pitanja usklađivala su se i prema državnim interesima (tzv. millet sistem).

Kada je reč 0 kategorijama vlasništva nad zemljom, uobičajena podela na mirijsku (miri), mulk (,mulk) i zadužbinsku (vakij) zemlju, odnosila se i na manastirska dobra, s tim što su ona pretežno bila uključena u državni posed (miriju), a manjim delom zemlja je tu bila u punom vlasništvu (mulk) kojom se inače slobodno raspolagalo, odnosno sa statusom vakufa, koja je bila extra commercium.

Primenjujući načelo šerijatskog prava po kome dve trećine imanja umr- log ostaju bližitn srodnicima kao zakonskim naslednicima "svaki hrišćanin mo- že treći dio svoga imanja zavještati crkvi, nranas.tiiu, patrijarhu, mitropolitu i episkopu, a kao svjedoci priznaju mu se i nemuslimani”. Turske vlasti su priznavale takva duhovna zaveštanja i pružale im zaštita. Turskim zvaničnim aktima bila je regulisana i ostavština umrlih osoba, neoženjenih sveštenika i mitropolita. Prilikom preuzimanja zaveštane imovine dolazilo je, neretko, do teškoća; bilo od strane nasl'ednika preminulog İ5İİO od lokalnili Urrskili vlasti, pa i od samih lokalnili mitropolita. Nevolje su dolazile i od strane fiska, budući da su pojedini monasi, posebno u manastirima sa idioritmijskom organizacijom (gde je postojao verski i ekonomski partikularizam monaha), posedovali znatna ma- terijal'na dobra. Namera državne vlasti da zaštiti kol'ektivnu manastirsku svojinu, pa i, ličnu, sasvim je očigledna,, bar sudeći po dosad raspoloživim izvorima..

Fragmentarnost sačuvanih izvora ne dozvoljava, zasad, da se donesu konkretniji zaključci o ulozi i.značaju hrišćanskog zadužbinarstva tokom dugih vekova turske vladavine na balkanskim prostorima. Sasvim je si.gurno, međutim, daje reč o trajnoj pojavi legalizovanoj, a u izvesnoj meri čak i štićenoj od strane turske vlasti.

----------------------------------------------------------

Endowments during the Ottoman rule

Islamic law, with certain limitations, alIows Jews and Christians to found endowments (waqfs) under the 1'ules of their leligions and before their re- ligious representatives.

In the relations between the Ottomans and non-Muslims (the so-called zimiye or wards) Shari’a was the main but not sole legal soui.ce: there was al- so Kanun (provisions with force of law), ^(settled practice oftlie supreme administration) and Adet (common law in the broadest sense ofthe word).

Finally, religious issues were also adjusted to the State interests (the so-called Millet System).

As for the categories ofownership over land, a customary classification was miri, mulk and waqf (endowment) lands, which also related to tlie monastic land. But, this land was mostly included in the State ownership (miri), with only its smaller part as full ownership (mulk) to be disposed of freely, i.e. it had ة sis aud VI extra commercium.

Applying a Shari'a principle, according to which two thirds ofa deceased person's property belonged to next ofkins as legal heirs: "each Cliristian can endow a third ofhis property to a churcil, monastery, patriarch, metropolitan or episcope, and non-Muslims are also accepted as his wltnesses.” Turklsh authorities did recognize sucli spirihral endowments and ensured their protection.Turkish official laws also regulated estates ofthe deceased, unmanied priests and metropolitans. When taking estate ovei', there aften arose problems, created either by heirs to the deceased or by local Turkish authorities, or even by local metropolitans themselves. Troubles also came from fisk, as some monks, especially in the monasteries with idiorrhythmic organization (where religious and economic particularism of monks existed), owned considerable property. The intention ofthe authorities to protect collective monastic property, as well as individua! one is quite manifest, at leastjudging by the informa- tion we have had to date.

Fragmentariness ofthe information preserved does not allow us, for the time being, to make more concrete conclusions about the role and relevance of Christian endowments over long centuries ofthe Turkish rule in the Balkans. Nevertheless, it is quite certain that it was a lasting phenomenon, legalized, and, to a certain extent, even protected by the non-coreligionist authorities.

Full Text:

Untitled PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.