The Probate Regime: Enchanted Bureaucracy, Islamic Law, and the Capital of Orphans in Nineteenth-Century Egypt

IF 0.8 3区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY Law and History Review Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1017/S0738248022000529
Adam Mestyan, Rezk Nori
{"title":"The Probate Regime: Enchanted Bureaucracy, Islamic Law, and the Capital of Orphans in Nineteenth-Century Egypt","authors":"Adam Mestyan, Rezk Nori","doi":"10.1017/S0738248022000529","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, we explore the “probate regime,” an administrative field of government activity of legally transferring, taxing, and administering bequests. As an example, we study the changes of the Egyptian probate regime in a longue durée perspective, with a focus on the nineteenth century when Egypt was a sub-Ottoman “khedivate.” We argue that the rationalization and expansion of the previously Ottoman administration of bequests, unlike Western bureaucracies, retained religious norms in the 1850s-1860s. In the context of Egyptian legal transformation, the change in the probate regime represents a case when Islamic norms became contested between administrative bodies of the government and the Muslim judge (qadi). Drawing on novel archival research in Egypt and elsewhere, we first consider the institutions of the Ottoman probate regime (probate judge, fees, and a probate bureau). Next, we zoom in on the way the khedivial probate bureau became a large, de-Ottomanized, Muslim administration of death by the 1870s in a partnership between khedives and local jurists. The khedives also considered the orphans’ wealth under the care of the bureau a source of government capitalism. Despite the abolishment of the probate bureau in 1896, the khedivial transformation ensured that Muslim principles remained normative during the British occupation which ushered in a new division of law into “religious” and “civil” legal domains.","PeriodicalId":17960,"journal":{"name":"Law and History Review","volume":"40 1","pages":"597 - 624"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and History Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0738248022000529","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In this article, we explore the “probate regime,” an administrative field of government activity of legally transferring, taxing, and administering bequests. As an example, we study the changes of the Egyptian probate regime in a longue durée perspective, with a focus on the nineteenth century when Egypt was a sub-Ottoman “khedivate.” We argue that the rationalization and expansion of the previously Ottoman administration of bequests, unlike Western bureaucracies, retained religious norms in the 1850s-1860s. In the context of Egyptian legal transformation, the change in the probate regime represents a case when Islamic norms became contested between administrative bodies of the government and the Muslim judge (qadi). Drawing on novel archival research in Egypt and elsewhere, we first consider the institutions of the Ottoman probate regime (probate judge, fees, and a probate bureau). Next, we zoom in on the way the khedivial probate bureau became a large, de-Ottomanized, Muslim administration of death by the 1870s in a partnership between khedives and local jurists. The khedives also considered the orphans’ wealth under the care of the bureau a source of government capitalism. Despite the abolishment of the probate bureau in 1896, the khedivial transformation ensured that Muslim principles remained normative during the British occupation which ushered in a new division of law into “religious” and “civil” legal domains.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
遗嘱认证制度:19世纪埃及迷人的官僚主义、伊斯兰法律和孤儿之都
在本文中,我们探讨了“遗嘱制度”,这是一个政府活动的行政领域,通过合法转让、征税和管理遗赠。作为一个例子,我们研究了埃及遗嘱制度的变化在一个长期的视角,重点放在19世纪,当埃及是一个次奥斯曼帝国的“khedivate”。我们认为,与西方的官僚机构不同,奥斯曼帝国遗产管理的合理化和扩张在19世纪50年代至60年代保留了宗教规范。在埃及法律转型的背景下,遗嘱制度的变化代表了伊斯兰规范在政府行政机构和穆斯林法官(qadi)之间发生争议的一个案例。借鉴埃及和其他地方的新档案研究,我们首先考虑奥斯曼遗嘱认证制度的制度(遗嘱认证法官、费用和遗嘱认证局)。接下来,我们将聚焦于khedivial遗嘱认证局是如何在19世纪70年代成为一个庞大的、去奥斯曼化的穆斯林死亡管理机构,由khedivial和当地法学家合作完成的。khedives也认为孤儿的财富在该局的照顾下是政府资本主义的一个来源。尽管在1896年废除了遗嘱认证局,但khedivial的转变确保了穆斯林原则在英国占领期间保持规范性,这导致了新的法律划分为“宗教”和“民事”法律领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and History Review (LHR), America"s leading legal history journal, encompasses American, European, and ancient legal history issues. The journal"s purpose is to further research in the fields of the social history of law and the history of legal ideas and institutions. LHR features articles, essays, commentaries by international authorities, and reviews of important books on legal history. American Society for Legal History
期刊最新文献
“Lost in Translation”: Extraterritoriality, Subjecthood, and Subjectivity in the Anglo–Yemeni Treaty of 1821 Witnesses for the State: Children and the Making of Modern Evidence Law The Cartojuridism of the British East India Company The Abolition of Slavery in Africa's Legal Histories The Sultans of Zanzibar and the Abolition of Slavery in East Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1