Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kamu Yararının Kurumsallaşması: Süleymaniye Vakfiyesi Üzerinden Bir Kurum Tarihi İncelemesi

This study offers a historical and social policy review aimed at understanding the institutional dimension of social service provision during the classical period of the Ottoman Empire. It evaluates the Süleymaniye Hospital (Darüşşifa) and its affiliated Mental Hospital (Bimarhane) within the framework of early social policy institutions. Established long before the emergence of modern welfare states, these institutions provided services to the most vulnerable segments of society based on the principles of charity (sadaqah), the waqf system, and public responsibility prevalent in Islamic civilisation. In this context, the Süleymaniye Hospital and Bimarhane are considered not merely as healthcare providers but as functional social service institutions that aimed to protect individuals at risk of social exclusion due to mental and physical disorders. Moreover, the professional division of labour and detailed staff definitions outlined in the kaffiyahs reveal the institutional foundations of early professionalisation dynamics.

The study is structured around three conceptual axes: institutional sustainability, social policy theory, and continuity. First, from the perspective of institutional sustainability, this study investigates how the Süleymaniye Hospital managed to survive for centuries and which normative principles and institutional structures enabled this persistence. In particular, the financial independence provided by the waqf-based model allowed the institution to remain largely unaffected by political changes and ensured long-term service delivery. In this regard, it is argued that waqf-based healthcare and social assistance institutions, while distinct from modern public service models, had a highly effective operational structure. In this context, the transparent auditing mechanisms and regular trustee board inspections described in the kaffiyahs also demonstrate the historical roots of institutional accountability and ethical approaches.

Second, the services offered by the Süleymaniye Bimarhane are evaluated through the lens of social policy theories. Today, social policy is a professional discipline aimed at enhancing individual and societal well-being. The early Ottoman practices examined here were shaped to respond to both individual and collective needs. The Bimarhane not only sought to treat individuals with mental health issues but also aimed to enable them to live with dignity, without being marginalised. In this respect, the institution demonstrated an approach in harmony with modern social policy values. The systematic inclusion of holistic treatment methods such as music therapy, pharmacotherapy, and spatial design in the kaffiyahs points to a historical psychosocial intervention model. 

The third conceptual focus is on sustainability, analysing the long-lived structure of the Süleymaniye Hospital. In contemporary public policy, the sustainability of services is a frequently debated issue. However, this was a fundamental pillar of the Ottoman institutional model functioning through the waqf system. Practices such as the clear specification of income and expenditure items in foundation charters (waqfiyahs), regular auditing by trustee boards, and the allocation of funds to specific service areas enabled both financial and functional sustainability. This shows that the foundation-based financing model has ensured the long-term continuity of such institutions. Thus, as a service system that observes the public interest, the Hospital has been able to survive for generations without a financial burden on the state. At the same time, the integration of hospital and medrese, which ensures intergenerational knowledge transfer, has secured the preservation of institutional memory and the continuity of an expertise culture. In this respect, the Süleymaniye Hospital offers important clues to contemporary social service institutions in terms of sustainability, participation and social justice principles. At the same time, the professional division of labour observed in the operation of the institution points to the dynamics of early professionalisation; the importance given to patient privacy and psychological well-being draws attention to the historical roots of an ethical approach that prioritises human dignity. Moreover, the service ethic shaped by religious and moral responsibility granted these institutions societal legitimacy beyond their bureaucratic structure.

The research is based on the analysis of some samples of historical documents and waqf charters related to the Süleymaniye Hospital. Through these sources, the functioning, staffing, service areas, and financing mechanisms of the Süleymaniye Hospital and Bimarhane are examined in detail. The data reveals that these institutions were effective not only in the domain of health but also in social integration, communal solidarity, and ethical responsibility. 

In conclusion, this article presents a comprehensive theoretical and practical analysis of social service institutions in the Ottoman Empire through the case of the Süleymaniye Hospital and Bimarhane. Often overlooked in the modern social policy literature, these historical institutions offer valuable inspiration for developing alternative welfare models and sustainable social service practices. Accordingly, the study draws attention to the importance of historical continuity in the discipline of social policy and argues that social welfare institutions in Islamic civilisation hold a rich legacy that can contribute meaningfully to contemporary debates. In our age, where social welfare state discussions are shaped by current crises and institutional disintegration, Ottoman foundation-based social service models carry inspiring potential in the construction of alternative public policies and local solidarity networks. In this context, Süleymaniye Hospital should be seen as a source of ideas for the social service idea of the future, rather than an institution of the past.