خلاصه ماشینی:
Building on Mamlūk-era developments that recognized the need for executive oversight in the domain of public order (68-70), Ottoman jurists integrated sultanic edicts and directives into their legal writings, binding their scholarly peers to the authority of the Empire.
It would be interesting to know, in this vein, whether Ayoub’s observations about the Ottoman context are true elsewhere, espe cially in the (similarly Ḥanafī) Mughal case: did jurists in Delhi and Agra reference imperial edicts in their writings, or was legal authority structured in quite different ways there?
Sultanic authority is ultimately of a piece with wider developments in authority structures in Late Ḥanafism, he demonstrates, including the pervasive influence of Ibn Nujaym (48-50), the Egyptian jurist whose legal writings first incorporated the insights of Anatolian jurists belonging to the Ottoman learned hierar chy.
Law, Empire and the Sultan constitutes a valuable contribution to our understanding of how imperial law-making came to figure more promi nently in the works of the Late Ḥanafī School in its Ottoman context.
8. For some initial insights and an outline of the key challenges to answering this question, see Guy Burak, The Second Formation of Islamic Law: The Ḥanafī School in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 208-224.