Ottoman sultans ruled subject to Islamic Holy Law they could not alter

Evidence

Another charge is that of tyranny. Certainly the Sultan was no democrat; but after all, democracy, as we know and practise it, has flourished in only a few places, and in most of them is recent and precarious. The Sultan was not a true despot, but the supreme custodian of the God-given Holy Law of Islam, to which he himself was subject. It is true that the Holy Law granted him almost despotic power, and that it did not provide for its own enforcement against him. But ultimately the Holy Law remained the basis of the social and political structure of the Empire, and was observed by the Sultans, whose sovereignty was accepted and respected by the people, both Muslims and Christian, as right and inevitable. — Bernard Lewis, From Babel to Dragomans, 639

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the constitutional character of the Sultanate as custodian of Holy Law rather than despot.
• ADDENDUM: Offers a counter-model of sovereignty bearing on how the region is legible to Western audiences as ‘tyranny.’