Dr. Uriel Heyd, Orientalist, Former Israeli Diplomat, Dead at 55
Profile | Uriel Heyd (1913– May 13, 1968)
Israel historian of Muslim institutions. Heyd was born in Cologne, Germany. He settled in Palestine in 1934. After service with the Political Department, Middle East section of the Jewish Agency, in Jerusalem and London (1943–48), he joined the Israel diplomatic corps, initially as first secretary of the Washington embassy, then as counselor of the legation in Ankara. His academic career began in 1951, when he joined the staff of the Hebrew University. From 1956 to 1963 he chaired the university's Institute of Oriental Studies, becoming a full professor of Islamic history in 1959.
Heyd's scholarly interest centered on the Ottoman Empire from the 16th to the 20th centuries. His books in Hebrew include Dahir al-Umar, Shalit ha-Galil ("Dahir al-Umar, Ruler of Galilee," 1942) and a translation from the Turkish of Mahmud Makal's Bizim Köy (Ha-Kefar Shellanu – "Our Village," 1951). Among his books in English are The Foundations of Turkish Nationalism (1950), Language Reform in Modern Turkey (1954), Ottoman Documents on Palestine 1552–1615 (1960), Revival of Islam in Modern Turkey (1968), and the posthumous Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law (1973). He edited Studies in Islamic History and Civilization (1961). His article "The Ottoman Ulema and Westernization in the Time of Selim iii and Mahmud ii" (in Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. 9, 1960) remains a major contribution.
Bibliography:
'Al Professor Uriel Heyd (1968); H. Inaleik, "Prof. Dr. Uriel Heyd," in: Belleten, 33, no. 129 (Jan. 1969), 115–16; A.N. Layish, "Uriel Heyd's Contribution…, in: British Society for Middle Eastern Studies Bulletin, 9, no. 1 (1982), 35–54; J.M. Landau, "Uriel Heyd, Founder of Turkish Studies in Israel," in: Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, 56 (2002), 237–44.
[Norman Itzkowitz /
Jacob M. Landau (2nd ed.)]
Posted By Ruth King on June 26th, 2019
https://www.andrewbostom.org/2010/08/uriel-heyd-on-turkeys-re-islamization-circa-
Professor Uriel Heyd (d. 1968) described Turkey’s tenuous secularization and aggressive re-Islamization fully 42 years before todays “learned analysts” have finally come to the same pathetically belated realization…
Since the recent Mavi Marmara flotilla affair—facilitated, and perhaps even orchestrated by the Turkish government—we have been inundated with excruciatingly belated, if not downright delinquent hand-wringing assessments by so-called “expert analysts” of Turkey. These “experts” lament what they view as Turkey’s “precipitous” return to Islamic fundamentalism under the current Erdogan-led AKP regime—as if this dangerous phenomenon emerged suddenly and fully formed from the head of Zeus al-Zawahiri.
A sobering, highly informed corrective to this cacophony of ill-informed Johnny and Janey-Come –Lately “learned analyst” voices was provided by the Israeli scholar of Ottoman and Republican Turkey, Professor Uriel Heyd (1913-1968)—just over forty-two years ago!
First, a brief biography of Heyd, derived from Professor Gabriel Baer’s opening tribute and Preface (pp. 5-6) to Heyd’s “Revival of Islam in Modern Turkey,” The Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1968, pp. 5-27, and Professor Aharon Layish’s, “Uriel Heyd’s Contribution to the Study of the Legal, Religious, Cultural, and Political History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey,” Bulletin of the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1982, pp. 35-54.
Born Uriel Heydt on July 26, 1913, in Cologne, Germany, Heyd learned Hebrew in secondary school, and subsequently Arabic, Turkish, and Persian. He also studied law and economics, before ultimately focusing on oriental studies. Immigrating to Palestine in 1934, Heyd studied Islamic culture, Arabic language and literature, as well as the history of Palestine at Hebrew University under the tutelage of Professors G. Weil, L.A. Meyer, and the great scholar of Muslim-Jewish relations, S.D. Goitein. Upon graduation, Heyd continued his studies by learning Turkish in Istanbul (1939/40), subsequently joining the Middle East Department of the Jewish Agency for Palestine in 1943. Transferred to the Agency’s London office, Heyd completed a seminal analysis of the influential Turkish nationalist Ziya Gokalp (which was accepted as a PhD thesis by Hebrew University), while also studying Old and Middle Persian, Old Turkish, and Urdu at The School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in the University of London. At SOAS, in addition, Heyd researched Ottoman diplomatic institutions and history under the renowned Ottomanist Professor Paul Wittek. Before joining the Hebrew University faculty in 1951, Heyd, between 1948 and 1950 served as a diplomat at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC, and the Israeli Legation in Akara, Turkey. At Hebrew University, Heyd ascended rapidly within the Department of the History of the Muslim Countries, which he would direct for some years, becoming the Eliyahu Elath Chair of the History of the Muslim Peoples in 1968, shortly before his sudden death May 13, 1968.
Heyd’s scholarly pursuits were broad, encompassing Ottoman history (including diplomatic history) and legal institutions, the mid-19th century Tanzimat reforms of the Ottoman Empire, and more generally, how Islamic religious and cultural institutions reacted to the processes of Westernization and secularization, particularly within the late Ottoman Empire, and modern Republican Turkey.
Abba Eban provided this assessment of Heyd’s contributions as both a scholar and diplomat during a eulogy delivered 30 days after Heyd’s death:
“To him [Heyd], Oriental Studies were not just an academic pursuit like any other. He regarded them as one of the conditions of integration in the region…He believed that we must understand the way the present is rooted in the past and the modes of thinking and expression of the peoples with our historical and geographical fate has perforce destined us to live in coexistence and proximity…”
But Heyd’s own candid words, from the remarkably foresighted 1968 lecture excerpted at length, below, reveal another quality almost entirely absent from our present era’s infinitely less substantial “academic experts” on Islam: self-critical humility, and the ability to express mea culpa. Taking his own measure, Heyd confessed—in 1968,
“Until a few years ago many foreign observers, including, I admit, myself, were inclined to think that this development [Turkey’s re-Islamization] was no more than a renewed expression of sentiments which for a long time could not be freely manifested and that the overall process of secularization was going on very slowly but irresistibly. Today I doubt whether this view is still tenable.”
The fact that 42 years later, today’s far less astute “experts on Turkey and Turkish Islam, etc.” nonetheless, offer no apologies for their distressingly belated recognition of Turkey’s re-Islamization, adds insult to irony.
Finally, before providing Heyd’s pellucid and self-explanatory March, 1968 insights on Turkey’s re-Islamization, it is important to add his independent acknowledgment (from Uriel Heyd, “The Later Ottoman Empire in Rumelia and Anatolia,” in Holt, p. 366, The Cambridge History of Islam Series: The Cambridge History of Islam (No. 1) Edited by P. M. Holt) that the so-called mid-19th century Tanzimat reforms of the religio-political status of Ottoman Turkey’s non-Muslim minorities were, “…brought about by western pressure, not an increasingly liberal public opinion in Turkey.” Moreover, Heyd concludes with this characteristically unapologetic assessment that no legal equality was possible under the Sharia-based Ottoman legal system:
“The religious axiom of the superiority of Islam and the centuries-old tradition of Muslim domination over unbelievers, had created an attitude that did not easily lend itself to change. The transformation of the Ottoman empire, spearhead of Islam, into a secular state where non-Muslims were granted complete equality was inconceivable.”
What follows are a series of extracts from Uriel Heyd’s March 28, 1968 lecture, “Revival of Islam in Modern Turkey,” at the dedication ceremony for the Eliyahu Elath Chair of The History of the Muslim Peoples.
For six centuries the Ottomans devoted their main efforts to the jihad, the holy war against Christendom…
The Ottoman State was the last great Muslim empire in history; its ruler was recognized by Sunni Muslims as the caliph of all true believers. In no other Muslim state of importance was the Sharia, the holy law of Islam, so firmly established and were the men of religion, the ulema, given so influential a place in government and public administration…When from the late eighteenth century onwards the Ottoman sultans began introducing Westernizing reforms, most of the leading ulema for various reasons supported them, while the men of religion in the lower ranks by and large strongly and violently opposed their measures. The fight for and against modernization and secularization has been going on in the Turkish state and society ever since.
Ataturk was able to execute these drastic reforms against much less resistance than many observers had expected. This was not due, as has sometimes been claimed, to a lack of deep religiosity in the Turkish people. The reason for Ataturk’s relatively easy victory over his conservative opponents are others. His so-called “revolution” was in fact but the final and logical conclusion of the long process of modernization and Westernization which during the preceding century had created a secular outlook in large sections of the upper class. The decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire had thoroughly discredited the traditional Islamic institutions, while the brilliant victories of Mustafa Kemal and his collaborators in the War of Independence against the4 Greeks and at the ensuing Lausanne Peace Conference in 1923 had gained them unrivalled prestige. The Turks, a nation of soldiers more disciplined than any other great Muslim people, were used to obey orders and now loyally followed the lead of their president as they had in the past accepted that of their Sultans. Agreement to, or at least acquiescence in, the secular reforms was made easier for them by Mustafa Kemal’s judicious policy of introducing them one by one over a period of years. As far as nevertheless there was resistance to the changes, it was checked by Mustafa Kemal’s authoritarian regime and in a few cases, such as the Kurdish rebellion of 1925, suppressed by draconian countermeasures.
When Ataturk died in 1938, many people believed that he had not only succeeded in transforming Turkey into a modern secular state but that Islam was doomed as a vital force in Turkish social and cultural life. It soon, however, became manifest that this judgment was premature, if not altogether wrong. Following the end of World War II both internal and external factors brought about great changes in the Turkish body politic. New parties were permitted to challenge the hitherto exclusive rule of Ataturk’s Republican People’s Party. In conformity with their ideology and in the hope of winning the votes of the predominantly conservative masses of the population, some of these parties demanded a less rigid application of the principle of secularism or even an openly favorable attitude towards Islam. Under the pressure of the opposition, the party in power had to make some concessions in the late forties. Limited and optional religious functionaries were organized and the University of Ankara established a Faculty of Theology.
A new phrase in the retreat from secularism opened with the victory of the Democratic Party in the general elections of May 1950. Significantly, one of the first measures of the new government headed by Adnan Menderes was to permit again the ezan, the call to prayer from the minarets, to be delivered in Arabic…In the following years the Turkish Government made further concessions to conservative public opinion. During the ten year rule of the Democratic Party innumerable new mosques were built and old ones repaired, partly with private contributions. Qur’an recitations and religious sermons were introduced into the program of the State-owned broadcasting stations, and for the first time large-scale financial and other support was given to those going on the pilgrimage to Mecca. Religious education was enlarged in the primary and extended to the lower secondary schools. (As from the current year [i.e., 1968] the upper secondary schools, lise, have also resumed religious instruction.) Most important, Menderes authorized the opening of a large number of religious secondary schools….As a result of the great increase in the number of new mosques and the rapid expansion of religious instruction after World War II there was…an acute shortage of competent religious functionaries and teachers of religion…After the training of men of religion had practically ceased for almost a generation, there existed a grave danger that the vacancies would be filled by illiterate obscurantists…In these schools…“religious” subjects, such as Arabic and Persian, Qur’an and its exegesis, Hadith, Islamic law, theology and philosophy, etc., amount to over 40 percent of the curriculum…Whether they will succeed in producing the desired type of graduates who are both good Muslims and enlightened modern men, loyal to both the precepts of religion and the secular principles of the Turkish Republic, is still to early to say…
The importance of these schools and institutes for the future religious and cultural development of Turkey is considerable. They train a new generation of religious-minded men, whose education and outlook will be markedly more Islamic than Western. It is noteworthy, for instance, that compared with the very many hours a week they devote to the teaching of Arabic and Persian, the time set aside for that of a European language is negligible. Though the overwhelming majority of the students are village boys, many of them after graduation find employment in the cities and smaller towns. Repeatedly demands have even been made to permit graduates of these schools to serve also as teachers of general subjects in primary schools.
In addition to these institutions private instruction in religion, disapproved in Ataturk’s time, seems to increase from year to year, often with the blessings and even the support of the authorities. Local imams in towns and villages teach children, both boys and girls, the rudiments of Islam, the Arabic script and the traditional recitation of the Qur’an in Arabic, often, as I noticed without teaching them to translate a single verse into Turkish. The earnestness and single-minded fervor of the students in those religious schools and courses are well known. I personally remember a visit, a few years ago, to a derelict small mosque in a remote part of Istanbul. There I found a small group of obviously poor Anatolian youths engaged in the study of a medieval compendium of Arabic grammar. The devotion with which they tried to learn by heart its rather dry and uninspiring rules, as if they were a scared text, was quite moving. The graduates of these religious schools and private courses will in due course form a new class of Turkish men of religion. How strong and influential they will be and what attitude they will adopt towards the modernization and Westernization of their society are crucial questions for the future of the Turkish Republic.
The latter trend (…viz. to withdraw more into themselves, to increase their self-confidence by turning to their religious and cultural traditions and the greatness of their national past…), the relative strength of which cannot yet be assessed, is facilitated by the very nature of Islam…Even for a secularist Muslim Turk attachment to his religious community retains therefore considerable social and political significance…[F]or most Turks only a Muslim is a real Turk. It is not easily forgotten that for many centuries being a Muslim meant membership in the ruling class. The fact that, unlike many Arab countries, Turkey has today [1968] no sizable Christian and Jewish minorities and that the latter took almost no part in the Turkish national movement further strengthens the identification of Turk with Muslims…[D]espite the solemn guarantee of freedom of conscience and religious belief in the Turkish Constitution (Art. 19), Christian missionary activities are restricted in modern Turkey…[U]ntil this day another Muslim nation, even if it has no particularly cordial relations with Turkey, is styled in the Turkish press kardes millet, “sister-nation.” On the other hand, any tension between Turkey and a Christian country still evokes in the Turkish public memories of the age-long struggle of Islam with Christendom…
[O]ne of the foremost authorities on modern Islam W.C. [William Cantwell] Smith, tends to believe that because of the separation of state and religion by Ataturk and for other reasons the modern Turks may be expected to play a leading role in Islamic reform. For the time being, however, there is little to justify this hope. Turkish books and pamphlets published in recent years on Islam, its past and future, are generally of poor quality, most of them being destined for the uneducated masses of the population. The fact that the religious problem is so closely linked with day-to-day party strife explains the violently political character of the discussions…
Ataturk’s secular reforms had not penetrated very deeply into the religious masses of the urban and particularly the rural population. Their political consciousness and influence has been constantly growing since the establishment of a multi-party regime and as a result of the economic development of the village and especially of the small town, the traditional center of religious conservatism…Turkish nationalism and Western civilization, the two main pillars of Ataturk’s cultural orientation, have proved incapable of filling, even for many educated Turks, the spiritual vacuum created by the elimination of Islam.
[I]n the last twenty years or so there has been an impressive resurgence of religious feeling and interest in Turkish society. An increasing number of people—unfortunately no breakdown according to classes and age-groups is available—go to the mosques, fast in the month of Ramadan and take part in the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. The tombs of great Islamic mystics, such as Celaluddin Rumi at Konya and Hacci Bektashi Kirshehir, attract many thousands of visitors (or pilgrims) who come to witness the traditional dances, music and singing. Reference has been made before to the rapidly growing number of children who go to religious schools or receive private instruction in Islam and the Arabic language. Very many women again put on the carshaf, the traditional garb draped over the head, and some even dare veil their face completely. Inscribed religious mottoes in Arabic are once more publicly displayed in shops, taxis, and elsewhere. Religious books, tracts and periodicals appear in ever increasing numbers and many newspapers almost daily publish popular stories of Islamic heroes and saints. Due to the loudspeakers recently installed in most minarets the calls to prayer five times a day drown the traffic sounds in the cities. These and many other phenomena of the same kind, all forbidden or at least disapproved until the late forties, do much to restore Republican Turkey the aspect of a distinctly Muslim country.
Can all this be truly called a religious revival? Until a few years ago many foreign observers, including, I admit, myself, were inclined to think that this development [Turkey’s re-Islamization] was no more than a renewed expression of sentiments which for a long time could not be freely manifested and that the overall process of secularization was going on very slowly but irresistibly. Today I doubt whether this view is still tenable.
…This survival and –if my interpretation is correct—revival of Islam in Turkey, the most secular of all Muslim countries, are obviously a fact of great significance for the future in the modern world.
ANDREW BOSTOM
Belleten
https://belleten.gov.tr/tam-metin-pdf/3315/tur
An international symposium on Society and Law in the Ottoman Empire Commemorating the 50th anniversary of the passing of Professor Uriel Heyd |Date & Time: June 26-27, 2018 | Location: at the Academy, 43 Jabotinsky street, Jerusalem
Society and Law in the Ottoman Empire was the subject of an international conference held at the Academy on June 26-27, 2018. Scholars from Turkey, the U.S. and Israel participated in the symposium, which included discussions on Ottoman criminal law, the judiciary, non-Muslim ethnic groups in the empire, Ottoman Palestine and other topics. The symposium was dedicated to the memory of Prof. Uriel Heyd, the founder of Ottoman studies in Israel, on the fiftieth anniversary of his death.
https://www.academy.ac.il/Index/Entry.aspx?nodeId=936&entryId=20435
In addition, in 1420, as per the agreement made with Byzantium,
The Jews in Thessaloniki, which came under the control of the Venetians,
They migrated to Edirne, which was the capital of the state at that time.
In addition to these, it came under Papal control in Budin in 1520 and in 1537.
With the invasion of Pulya, the Jews entered the Ottoman lands.
In addition, in the 1540s and 1550s, immigration from Catholic Europe continued. known. XVI. Jews expelled from Italy at the end of the century and Many Jews from other regions also did not experience exile.
They came to the Ottoman lands of their own will. Epstein's As he stated, especially in the XV. and XVII. between two centuries Anti-Semitism in Western Europe for more than a century and the ensuing disturbances, such as the crusades and the plague. The direction of the migrations caused by these reasons was mostly Ottoman.
56 How did this movement evolve over time? The tahrir records are important in terms of depicting what he watched.
Looking at the records, it is seen that there were 1,647 in 1477 in Istanbul. The number of Jewish households, which were in the tahrir of 1535, increased approximately four times. It reached 8,070.
Jews living in Ottoman lands, their protectors in Europe important in the economic and political weakening of the absence of Bernard Lewis, who shared the general opinion58 that there is a reason, XVII. In the 19th century, from Europe to the Ottoman geography With the cessation of immigration, intellectual and that there was a material poverty, but in fact, the Jews thinks that the deterioration of their situation as a community started with the Sabbatay Sevi incident. In contrast, Sephardic In this century, especially in 1610, the Jews came to the Ottoman lands.
immigration continued, and even those in this group played an important role in Ottoman medicine. they have a place. As Fernand Braudel said, “Jews have always they depend on their deterioration, they accompany them.” the expression of the Jews as a religious element - the domination of which state. the parallelism of their position with the economic situation, regardless of A. Ubicini's, The economic and political aspects of the Jews living in the Ottoman Empire.his ideas about the reasons for his relatively weak It has a valuable content for understanding:
“The desire to learn and the taste for literature are slow among the Jews of Turkey. slowly began to disappear. Greeks imitating themselves, Europe Once they began to learn their language, the Jews would not be able to compete with them. instead of reviving their enthusiasm and efforts, they turn to indifference. plunged into … other communities, Muslim or Christian, into European languages and as he became more and more interested in his subjects, to remain in possession of their wealth by others. They watched indifferently.
Uriel Heyd
İsrailli şarkiyatçı, Osmanlı ve Türkiye tarihçisi.
Müellif:
JACOB M. LANDAU
Almanya’nın Köln şehrinde doğdu. 1934’te Kudüs’e göç etti ve orada İbrânî Üniversitesi’nin Doğu Araştırmaları Enstitüsü’nde Almanya’da iken başladığı şarkiyat tahsiline devam etti; 1939-1940 öğrenim yılında bulunduğu İstanbul Üniversitesi’nde Türkçe’sini ilerletti. 1943-1948 yılları arasında Jewish Agency’nin Ortadoğu siyasî şubesinde çalıştı. 1948’de İsrail Devleti’nin kurulması üzerine diplomatik göreve başladı ve önce Washington büyükelçiliğinde birinci sekreterlik, daha sonra Ankara büyükelçiliğinde müsteşarlık yaptı. 1951 yılında diplomatik görevi bırakarak Kudüs İbrânî Üniversitesi’nde ders vermeye başladı. 1959’da İslâm tarihi profesörü olduktan sonra Müslüman Halklar ve Ortadoğu Tarihi Bölümü’nün başkanlığına ve Doğu Araştırmaları Enstitüsü’nün müdürlüğüne getirildi. Hocalığı süresince üniversitedeki İslâm, Doğu ve Afrika araştırmalarının gelişmesine büyük katkı sağlayarak yerli ve yabancı bilim adamlarının ve öğrencilerin dikkatlerini buraya çekti; öğrencileri dünyanın çeşitli üniversitelerinde öğretim üyesi oldular. Heyd aynı zamanda Ortadoğu, Asya, Afrika araştırmaları yapan ve siyasetle ilgisi bulunmayan İsrail Müsteşrikler Cemiyeti’nin aktif üyesiydi. 13 Mayıs 1968’de Kudüs’te öldü.
Eserleri. Araştırmalarını genellikle İslâmî alanda yapmasına ve Arapça ile Farsça’yı da Türkçe kadar iyi bilmesine rağmen Heyd’in yayımlanmış çalışmalarının çoğu, Osmanlı Devleti’ni ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ni ilgilendiren tarih, dil ve hukuk konuları üzerinedir.
1. Ḍāhir al-‘Umar: Şallīt ha-Galīl bame’ah ha-18 (Zâhir el-Ömer: XVIII. yüzyılda Celîle emîri [Kudüs 1942]). İlk eseri olup orijinal kaynaklara dayanılarak İbrânîce yazılmıştır. Eserde, Sayda’daki Osmanlı paşasına karşı isyan ederek Kuzey Filistin’in Celîle bölgesinde özerk bir yönetim kuran bedevî emîri Zâhir el-Ömer ve onun mücadelesi ele alınmıştır.
2. Foundations of Turkish Nationalism: The Life and Teachings of Ziya Gökalp (London 1950). Müellifin doktora tezini esas alarak hazırladığı, modern Türk milliyetçiliğinin merkezî şahsiyeti ve teorisyeni sıfatıyla Ziya Gökalp’in oynadığı rolü ve aynı zamanda onun İslâm ve laiklik hakkındaki fikirlerini sistematik biçimde incelediği bu eseri Kadir Günay Türk Ulusçuluğunun Temelleri (İstanbul 1979), Cemil Meriç de Ziya Gökalp: Türk Milliyetçiliğinin Temelleri (İstanbul 1980) adıyla Türkçe’ye tercüme etmiştir.
3. Language Reform in Turkey (Kudüs 1954). Türk dil reformu tarihini ve bu hususta karşılaşılan güçlükleri inceleyen bir çalışmadır.
4. Ottoman Documents on Palestine 1552-1615: A Study of the Firman According to the Mühimme Defteri (Oxford 1960). Heyd, birkaç yıl Türkiye’de Başbakanlık Arşivi ile diğer kurumlarda bulunan belgeler üzerinde çalışarak hazırladığı bu eserinde kullandığı belgelerin fotoğraflarını da vermiştir. Eserde o dönem Filistin’inin tarihi Osmanlı diplomasisi ve sosyal, ekonomik, dinî, kültürel ve askerî şartlar açısından ele alınmış, özellikle sivil ve askerî yönetim, vergilendirme, ticaret, endüstri, vakıflar ve belediye hizmetleriyle müslüman ve azınlıklara ait kutsal yerler üzerinde durulmuştur.
5. Revival of Islam in Modern Turkey (Kudüs 1968). Heyd’in ölümünden hemen önce, kendi gözlemlerine dayanarak Menderes hükümetiyle birlikte Türkiye’de İslâmî uyanışı ele aldığı ve dinin giderek artan öneminin tahlilini yaptığı yirmi yedi sayfalık küçük bir kitaptır.
6. Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law (Oxford 1973). Hayatının son yıllarında Osmanlı Devleti’nde İslâm hukukunun uygulanışı konusuyla ilgilenen müellifin kaleme aldığı bu eser V. L. Ménage tarafından yayımlanmıştır. Fâtih Sultan Mehmed, II. Bayezid, Kanûnî Sultan Süleyman dönemlerinde ve XVII. yüzyılın ikinci çeyreğinde tatbik edilen ceza hukukuyla ilgili olan eserde ceza uygulamalarının yanı sıra hukuk sistemi, mahkemeler, davalar ve kanunlar ayrıntılı bir şekilde incelenir. Osmanlı hukuk ve adalet sistemi üzerine yeni bir yaklaşım sergileyen kitabın sonuna bir hukuk terimleri sözlüğü eklenmiştir.
Heyd, dokuz ayrı yazarın çalışmasından oluşan Studies in Islamic History and Civilization (Kudüs 1961) adlı eserin editörlüğünü de yapmıştır. Bu kitapta yer alan yazılar arasında onun “The Ottoman Ulema and Westernization in the Time of Selim III and Mahmut II” (s. 63-96) başlığını taşıyan makalesi önemlidir. Bu yazısında, o dönemdeki modernleşme teşebbüslerini ve ulemâ ile halk kesiminin Batılılaşma’ya karşı tavrını irdeler. Mahmut Makal’ın Bizim Köy’ünü de Ha-Kěfâr şellanū adıyla İbrânîce’ye çeviren Heyd (Tel Aviv 1951), böylece İsrail’de ve dünyanın başka yerlerinde İbrânîce okuyan insanlara o zamanın Türkiye’sindeki kırsal hayatla ilgili bir eseri tanıma fırsatı vermiş oldu.
Heyd birçok makale ve ansiklopedi maddesi yazdı. En önemlileri aşağıdakiler olmak üzere İngilizce ve İbrânîce yayımlanan makaleleri üç gruba ayrılabilir. 1. Modern Türkiye’de İslâm ve kültür: “Islam in Modern Turkey” (JRCAS, sy. 34 [Temmuz-Ekim 1947], s. 299-308); “Cultural Problems of Modern Turkey” (New Outlook, III/8 [Tel Aviv, Temmuz-Ağustos 1960], s. 13-23). 2. Osmanlı hukuk sistemi: “Kanun and Şarī‘a in Old Ottoman Criminal Justice” (Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, III/1 [Kudüs 1967], s. 1-18); “Some Aspects of the Ottoman Fetvā” (BSOAS, XXXII/1 [1969], s. 35-56). 3. Osmanlı Devleti’nde yahudiler: “The Jewish Communities in Istanbul in the Seventeenth Century” (Oriens, VI [1953], s. 299-314); “Moses Hamon, Chief Jewish Physician to Sultan Süleyman the Magnificient” (Oriens, XVI [1963], s. 152-170; eserlerinin tam listesi için bk. Layish, BSMES, IX/1, s. 51-54).
BİBLİYOGRAFYA
Gabriel Baer, “In Memory of Uriel Heyd” (U. Heyd, Revival of Islam in Modern Turkey, Jerusalem 1968 içinde), s. 5-6.
The Times, London 20 May 1968.
Ha-Aretz, Tel Aviv 13 June 1968.
“The Works of Professor Uriel Heyd”, AAS, V (1969), s. 203-207.
Halil İnalcık, “Prof. Dr. Uriel Heyd”, TTK Belleten, XXXIII/129 (1969), s. 115-116.
A. Layish, “Uriel Heyd’s Contribution to the Study of the Legal, Religious, Cultural and Political History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey”, BSMES, IX/1 (1982), s. 35-54.
N. Itzkowitz, “Heyd, Uriel”, EJd., VIII, 448.
Uriel Heyd on Turkey’s Re-Islamization, Circa 1968: Over Four Decades Ahead of Today’s “Analysts”