The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 94)

غرض

عنوان

The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 94)

المحتوى

78
To reassert its control, the state reaffirmed its ragaba rights over miri land,
but at the same time embarked on the issuance of titles to the holders of such land.
Warriner provides an interpretation of this seemingly contradictory policy. “The
state’s claim to ownership really meant only that the state did not recognize
ownership unless the title was registered and the land therefore taxable.””
Moreover, the new Land Code did not recognize any form of communal ownership
(mushaa). It also declared that land left uncultivated for three years could be
confiscated, and that land could not be sold without permission from the
government.”°
In addition to the issuance of titles, the code also extended the rights of
inheritance; both measures intended to provide incentives for the improvement of
land. It also allowed for land to be rented, and placed no restrictions on the size of
privately owned land.*’
The complex forms of land tenure, the tentative and incomplete transitional
nature of the fanzimat period, and, as yet, the lack of detailed local information on
the different parts of the empire have given rise to various interpretations on the
intentions and results of the Land Code. For example, Sluglett and Farouk-Sluglett
reject the assertion by Warriner that one of the intentions of the Land Code was to
\%Warriner, “Land Problems,” 73.
Baer, 84.
*!Kerpat, 87-8.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

هو جزء من

The Dispossession of the Peasantry

تاريخ

٢٠٠٦

المنشئ

Riyad Mousa

مجموعات العناصر

Generated Pages Set

Theses رسائل ماجستير ودكتوراه