​

The treaties are considered as the most important way for the country to promote its foreign 

policy. In general, it results from military work, so the winner will use it to fulfill its aims that 

were not achieved through the war. This study deals with a treaty which was signed by the 

Ottoman and the Russian empires in 1774 .This research also shows the terms of the treaty and 

its effects. It also explains the Fiqhi issues raised in it, and indicates if it is compatible with the 

legitimate constraints of international treaties in Islamic Fiqh. The constraints include granting 

political independence to Crimea, paying huge restitution to the Russians, and waving some of 

their lands, which are not acceptable in Islamic law unless necessary. So, the Hanafi school 

scholars decided that treaties with a warring party is not acceptable at all unless it could assist 

Muslims in the war or to increase the state's strength. “It is permitted only as a way to fight, 

because then it will be a metaphorical way of fighting.” [Al kasaniu: Badayie Alsanayie 7:108] 

Otherwise, the negotiator should achieve for the state which it would have to achieve by 

fighting. The study makes it clear that this happened in some terms of the treaty. Although it 

was widely deemed to be a curse, it is like a treasure for researchers in international relations 

and legitimate politics.​