Book Read Free

Women in the Ottoman Balkans: Gender, Culture and History

Page 21

by Amila Buturovic


  toward the construction of a mescid or other charitable facility, as needed. From

  the viewpoint of these instructions, her vakuf was different from all the other

  women’s vakuf s dating from the sixteenth century that we find in the sources.

  This detailed information on Šemsa Kaduna’s vakuf is based on the preserved

  vakufnama. She founded her vakuf at the same time as her husband, Sinan Beg,

  so that the spouses’ vakuf s were recorded in the same vakufnama dated 1582.62 We

  do not know if a building was built from Šemsa Kaduna’s vakuf, and if so, where,

  but her grave with a headstone (in Bosnian, turbe) did exist in Čajniče in Eastern

  Bosnia, next to the tomb of her husband and near the mosque built by him.63

  The richest endowment established by a woman by the end of the sixteenth

  century was Shahdidar’s. The amount of 115,000 akçe, of which 100,000 were

  endowed in cash, is one of the largest of all the endowments registered in the

  1604 Defter. Although we do not know anything about the origin of Shahdidar’s

  property, we know that she founded her endowment after the death of her husband,

  Husrev Beg, given the words al-marūm al-marqūm prefixed to his name when

  mentioned in Shahdidar’s vakufnama.64 Since Husrev Beg died in 1541, Shahdidar

  must have founded her endowment some time thereafter.65 In the form copied into

  the court records, Shahdidar’s vakufnama ends as follows: “Shahdidar declared

  that after her death, her vakuf should be transferred to Neslishah Sultan, daughter

  of Seljuk Sultan’s daughter, if the latter so demanded, as the benefactress is

  Neslishah’s slave, her property, and her right.”66 On that basis, Fehim Dž. Spaho

  who translated Shahdidar’s vakufnama into Bosnian has concluded that Husrev

  Beg must have been married to his sister’s freed slave.67 If this was indeed the

  case, then most probably Shahdidar inherited the property from her husband. In

  any case, at the time she founded her endowment, she had at her disposal both real

  estate and large amounts of money.

  Upon comparing the sums of money endowed, we can reasonably establish

  that the benefactresses mentioned in this paper were wealthy. However, it is worth

  noting that women with much less property than Shahdidar—Šemsa Kaduna and

  Hatidža Hatun—also donated their property to charity. If we set aside these three

  women (in view of their family ties with statesmen), then we can consider the

  daughters of Havadže Kemal and Havadže Durak—both men were well-known

  benefactors in Sarajevo—wealthy as well. The two women, and those of whom

  we know nothing except their names and the fact that they were benefactresses,

  endowed money, while the endowing of real estate was so rare that it can be

  taken as sporadic. To what extent women in the early period of Ottoman Bosnia

  disposed of real estate at all is a question to which an answer cannot be found in

  the 1604 Defter. Some additional information is offered by vakufnama s related to

  that period, in the following manner: since vakufnama s contain exact dimensions

  and the first neighborhood of the real estate being endowed, we encounter the

  names of women who owned real estate. Such information is found in both

  Filan, Women Founders oF Pious endoWments

  111

  Shahdidar’s and Husrev Beg’s vakufnama s. In Shahdidar’s, we read that the

  house that she endowed bordered the property of Dudiya, daughter of Aliya, on

  the East,68 while Gazi Husrev Beg endowed, inter alia, a property that he had

  bought from a woman named Hanum Hatun.69

  Review of the Later Centuries

  If we compare the properties of vakuf s founded by women in the sixteenth century

  with those of the vakuf s of Aiša, daughter of Hajji Ahmed, in the seventeenth

  century, and of Fatima Ašida, daughter of Imaretlić Vejsel Aga, in the nineteenth,

  we see that women in later centuries endowed more real estate than did their

  predecessors. We learn of these two benefactresses from their own vakufnama s.

  In the hope that we might find some information concerning the benefactresses

  registered in the 1604 Defter, we looked through 1,092 vakufnama s from Bosnia

  and Herzegovina that have been preserved to date.70 None of the vakufnama s

  in this sample refer to the vakuf s of the women mentioned in the 1604 Defter.71

  With the exception of the benefactress Shahdidar, the information we have about

  these women is limited to what is recorded in the Defter itself. Nevertheless,

  the list of vakufnama s shows that women founded vakuf s throughout the

  centuries in Ottoman Bosnia. The 1604 Defter contains information for the

  period until the end of the sixteenth century, and in the aforementioned set of

  vakufnama s we came across the names of benefactresses in all later centuries.

  There are 249 recorded benefactresses, which means that out of the total number

  of the vakufnama s preserved in the Gazi Husrev Beg Library, about 23% are

  for women’s vakuf s. Obviously these figures cannot be considered conclusive,

  since they include neither the vakuf s of the women about whom the 1604 Defter

  provides information, nor those of men and women whose vakufnama s have not

  been preserved, especially from the earlier centuries.

  Among the preserved vakufnamas from Bosnia and Herzegovina are those

  referring to the vakuf s of Aiša and Fatima Ašida. The former benefactress founded

  a vakuf in 1646 in the city of Mostar by endowing 7,000 akçe, two shops, and

  gardens. The latter, Fatima Ašida, daughter of Imaretlić Vejsel Aga ( medîne-i

  Saraybosna’da Yahya Paşa mahallesinde sâkine fahrü’l-muhadderât Fâtima

  Aşida bint Imâretli-zâde Veysel Aga ibn Ibrâhîm Aga—4–5),73 established her

  vakuf two centuries later, in 1875, by endowing two shops, one oda, and some

  land [ arsa]. Aiša, daughter of Hajji Ahmed, stated in her vakufnama that she had

  inherited the real estate she intended to endow from her father. She also states

  that after her death and that of her sisters, her vakuf should be joined to her

  father’s; thus, we also learn from Aiša’s vakufnama that Hajji Ahmed was also

  a benefactor. There is no evidence pertaining to Fatima Ašida in her vakufnama,

  either about the origin of her property or about the benefactors in her family. In

  this short paragraph, we have reviewed only two vakuf s established by women in

  later centuries.

  112

  Women in the ottoman Balkans

  Provisions Regarding the Endowment

  Only from vakufnama s are we able to learn something about whether women

  attended court in person, or acted through a proxy, when they wanted to draw

  up a legal document regarding an endowment. The Defter offers no information

  on that subject. In the transcript of Shahdidar’s vakufnama, there is no mention

  of her proxy at court, which allows us to assume that she participated in person

  in drawing up the deed of endowment. Hatidža Hatun authorized her husband

  Husein Beg to establish her vakuf before the court. Accordingly, the court first

  checked the authenticity of the power of attorney, as stated in the vakufnama, and

  then proceeded to draw up the vakufnama.74 Although Husein Beg’s vakufnama

  includes his sister Mihri Hatun’s
vakuf, there is no record in the vakufnama

  showing that she had empowered her brother or anyone else to represent her

  before court. There is no such record about Šemsi Kaduna either; her vakufnama,

  like Hatidža Hatun’s, is contained in her husband’s vakufnama.

  Whether a benefactress established her endowment in person before the court

  or by proxy, she, in accordance with legal procedure, declared which part of her

  property she endowed, for what purpose she had founded the vakuf, and who

  was to be paid a salary from the proceeds of the property she had endowed. She

  also specified the duties of those who were to receive a salary, and nominated an

  administrator and a supervisor [ nazır] for the management of vakuf affairs. For

  large vakuf s like the one founded by Shahdidar, the range of provisions set by the

  benefactor was even broader: the salary to be paid to the chief official leading

  prayers in the mescid she built, to the school teacher, assistant teacher (should

  such a position be established), and bookkeeper; the amount earmarked for the

  maintenance of the building, including such expenses as lighting, cleaning, the

  purchase of carpets, etc. All these provisions were recorded in the deed of the

  vakuf foundation. As an official document, the vakufnama therefore has a certain

  format in terms of content sequence. Still, each vakufnama is an expression of

  the free will of a particular benefactor: the benefactor’s will had to be executed

  as law.

  As a very small number of sixteenth-century vakufnama s have been preserved,

  we are left with only the Defter to try to understand how benefactresses stipulated

  conditions for the use of the profits from their endowments. Although the relevant

  information in the Defter is very modest, it can be seen that women usually

  stipulated that the proceeds from their vakuf s should be used for the salaries of

  the officials of the endowment to which they had joined their own. In exchange

  for a salary, the religious official—an imam or mu’ezzin—had the duty of reciting,

  at certain times, a chapter from the Qur’an, short or long as specified by the

  benefactress. When we look at the list of vakuf s in the 1604 Defter, we can see

  that the joined vakuf proceeds also paid the salaries of religious officials: secure

  salaries kept the mescid, the central institution of a large vakuf, in operation. For

  the chief official—the imam—a somewhat higher amount was stipulated than for

  lower-ranking officials such as the mu’ezzin. In this respect, Shehsuvar Hatun

  stipulated a different condition from other benefactors, at least as far as can be

  Filan, Women Founders oF Pious endoWments

  113

  surmised from the Defter: she stated that the imam and mu’ezzin should be paid

  equal salaries.75

  Providing an income for unspecified vakuf officials according to their function

  was not, however, a firm rule. Benefactors could stipulate that the duties for which

  a salary was to be paid out of the proceeds of their vakuf should be performed by

  someone specific personally appointed by them. Seljuka, the wife of Hajji Kemal,

  posed the condition that a salary from her vakuf should be paid to a Mevlana

  Hussam, in exchange for which he would recite chapters from the Qur’an.76 The

  confectioner’s wife, too, decided that a certain Mahmud, son of Mustafa, should

  be paid a salary from her vakuf; he was also charged with reciting chapters from

  the Qur’an.77 Who were Mevlana Hussam and Mahmud, son of Mustafa? Why

  did the benefactresses stipulate salaries for them? The Defter contains no answers

  to these questions. We can only conclude that they were not vakuf officials, since

  both benefactresses stipulated that after the death of the persons to whom salaries

  were to be paid, those funds would be paid to the vakuf officials. Seljuka and the

  confectioner’s wife thus specified salaries for particular individuals; whether they

  were family members or friends, we cannot tell from the information recorded.

  Perhaps the benefactors wanted to support those persons by providing them

  with a living wage, as far as their vakuf s could afford? The benefactress Seyda,

  daughter of Atmadži, also assigned a salary from her vakuf, established in 1566, to

  a particular person—Abdiya Halifa, the chief official at the Ali Pasha mosque in

  Sarajevo. She stipulated that upon his death, the salary in question would be paid

  to the chief official, whoever he might be, at the Skender Pasha mosque, located

  in the quarter where Seyda lived.78 Under these provisions, the vakuf of Seyda,

  daughter of Atmadži, was effectively joined to that of the Skender Pasha mosque,

  but the benefactress transferred the salary to a particular man during his lifetime.

  The salary was paid for the duties performed in accordance with the conditions

  laid by the benefactress. These duties had a religious purpose: reading God’s

  Book. On the one hand, this meant that the appointed person had the knowledge

  (the religious education) to discharge the set duties, and on the other, that he

  possessed high moral qualities. Therefore, through paying salary—which did not

  exceed one akçe per day in the smaller vakuf s—the pious endowment played a

  role in the moral, and even religious-educational, life of the community.

  This role of the vakuf can be understood even better when a benefactor or

  benefactress sets the condition that entitlement to a salary, and thus taking on the

  stipulated duty, should be passed from parent to child. This is what, for instance,

  Havadže Kemal’s daughter Hanifa decided. She stipulated a salary from her vakuf

  for Sheykh Yunus Efendi on the condition that he recites the Qur’an. After Yunus

  Efendi’s death, the salary would be inherited by his children, and then by his

  children’s children.79 In order for the children to inherit their father’s salary, they

  had to be prepared to fulfill the condition laid down by the benefactor—they

  had to be able to recite the Qur’an, which meant that they had at least to attend

  primary school [ sıbyan mektebi] where they would learn to read the Qur’an.80

  114

  Women in the ottoman Balkans

  Furthermore, under this provision, Yunus Efendi’s descendents were expected to

  be honest people.

  Direct support for schools shows even more clearly that these women were well

  aware of the educational role of the vakuf. It was indicated earlier that Shahdidar’s

  endowment had an educational dimension through the school she built. We can

  also say of Mihri Hatun’s vakuf that it had an educational purpose, in the sense

  that the benefactress set aside the profits earned from the money she had endowed

  for the salaries of the teachers in one of the two schools founded by her brother.

  The school’s founder, Husein Beg, had decided on a salary of 2 akçe per day for

  the teacher at the school he had opened in the village of Vrhbarje, but the teacher

  received another akçe from Mihri Hatun’s vakuf. In that way, the benefactresses

  Shahdidar and Mihri Hatun supported education, each according to her funds: one

  by opening a school, the other by supplementing a teacher’s salary. Fatima Ašida,

  too, set aside part of the funds from her vakuf for educational purposes
, specifically

  for the education of women. This benefactress’s provision was to reward from

  her vakuf proceeds, as was customary, a religious official who would, every year

  during three selected months of the Muslim calendar, deliver a lecture once a

  week for women in the Yahya Pasha mosque in Sarajevo ( ve be-her sene receb

  ve şa’bân ve ramazân aylarında haftada birer def’a Yahya Paşa câmi’-i şerîfde

  nisâ’ tâ’ifesine va’z u nasîhat edüp vâ’iz efendiye fazla-ı mezkûreden emsâli

  misillü ikrâm oluna).81 Although we know nothing about Fatima Ašida’s own

  education, this provision shows that she understood the importance of learning.

  Aiša of Mostar made her contribution to education in her town by stipulating that

  part of the funds from her vakuf should be used to support poor scholars at the

  Karađoz Beg medrese. However, this was not the benefactor’s only condition;

  she also expressed the wish to buy, if possible, blankets for this school’s students

  with which they could cover themselves in winter, and firewood to keep them

  warm. The examples of Aiša and Fatima Ašida show that women were able to

  take care of some “secondary” areas of educational life in the community where

  they lived.

  Judging from the four vakufnama s we have used as sources for this paper, it

  can be expected that others will also provide interesting insight into the purposes

  of women’s vakuf funds.

  Women in the Service of Endowments

  Any person considered by the benefactor to be honest and capable of performing the

  duty could be appointed vakuf administrator or supervisor. The administrator bore

  a particularly important responsibility, as carrying out the provisions stipulated by

  the benefactor were, for the administrator, an absolute imperative.82 The Defter

  offers us very little information about the people whom the benefactors entrusted

  with those duties. We can see that Đulizar Hatun entrusted the mescid chief official

  with the duty of administrating her vakuf, but there is no record as to what salary

  she attached to that position. Nor is it known what salaries the sisters Aiša and

  Fatima set aside for the administrator of their vakuf, when they entrusted the duty

  Filan, Women Founders oF Pious endoWments

  115

  to their father Mahmud in 1564.83 By entrusting the duty of administrator to their

 

‹ Prev