Kadizadeli

INFORMATION TO USERS
The most advanced technology has been used to photo

graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm
master. UMI film s the text directly from the original or
copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies
are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type
of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the

quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print,
colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs,
print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
hi the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a
complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these
will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material
had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re

produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the
upper left-hand comer and c o n tin u in g from left to right in
equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also
photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book. These are also available as
one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23"
black and white photographic print for an additional
charge.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have

been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher
quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are
available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
University Microfilms International

A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Order Number 9024621
T he KSdleSdeli m ovem ent: A n a tte m p t o f scri'at-mindcd reform in

th e O ttom an E m pire
Qavngoghi, Semiramis, PhJD.

Princeton University, 1990
C opyright © 1990 b y C w q o ^ n , Sem iram is. AH rig h ts reserved.
UMI
300N.ZeebRd.
AnnArbor,MI48106
THE KADIZADELi MOVEMENT:
AN ATTEMPT OF SERI *AT-MINDED REFORM
IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
Semiramis £avu$oglu
A DISSERTATION
PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
, DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
RECOMMENDED FOR ACCEPTANCE
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
Near Eastern Studies
(c) Copyright by Semiramis Qavuôglu 1990
All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
This thesis aims to study a significant religious movement,
known as the Kadlzadeli, in seventeenth-century Ottoman society.
My purpose is to examine the Kadizadelis-as the proponents of a
specific attempt of Islamic reform in Ottoman society, namely as
serf1at-minded reformers in contrast to some well-known
seventeenth-century Ottoman intellectuals such as Koci Bey and
Katib Celebi who saw the solution to Ottoman decline in the
implementation of kanun.
The Introduction gives an account of the sources that I
nave used. These are, Ottoman chronicles and biographical
sources, the works by western historians, diplomats and
travelers, and the works of modern historians. Naturally, the
books written by the Kadlzadeli and the Sufi leaders- themselves
constitute the essential part of my sources.
Part I briefly describes the setting of the movement, i.e.,
the seventeenth-century Ottoman Empire which was characterized by
such factors as population pressure, inflation, changes in the
taxation system and in the military organization. The
Kadizadelis emerged with a particular solution to the Ottoman
crisis: a strict observance of the Kur’an, sunnet and traditions
of the Prophet and abstention from innovations. We can therefore
consider the Kadlzadelis as the intellectual heirs of the selefis
or the ehlii ’l-had~s. Part I also examines the life and works of
-ii-
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
KadTzadelis emerged with a particular solution to the Ottoman
crisis: a strict observance of the Kur’an, sunnet and traditions
of the Prophet and abstention from innovations. We can therefore
consider the Kadlzadelis as the intellectual heirs of the selefts
or the ehlii’1-hadTs. Part I also examines the life and works of
Birgivr Mehmed Efendi, who influenced the Kadlzadelis with his
ideas, and the cash vakf controversy in the Ottoman Empire within
which he was involved. Part II treats the Kadlzadeli movement in
three stages under the leadership of the three respective
KadTzadeli and SufT leaders. Part III examines the specific
issues of contention between the two sides.
Despite the movement’s suppression by the state in
1066/1656, the KadTzadelis continued their activities under the
leadership of their third leader VanT Mehmed Efendi. They,
however, failed to fulfill their objective of finding a remedy
for Ottoman decline. I have explored the reasons for this
failure as well as the overall influence and legacy of the
movement in the Conclusion.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Writing a dissertation has been a long and hard journey for
me. I should thank people who gave me assistance at different
stages on the way. I am especially grateful to my supervisor
Professor Cemal Kafadar. This thesis owes so much to his
profound interest in the pTdizadelis, his guidance, perceptive
criticisms and suggestions as well as his perpetual moral
support.
When I was an undergraduate in Bosphorus University, I
attended the seminars of Professors §erif Mardin, Engin Akarlir
Heath Lowry and Metin Kunt. I thank them all for the inspiration
they gave me to do graduate work and for their continuous
encouragement. Professor Mardin also read my first draft and
provided perceptive suggestions.
I wish to thank Near Eastern Studies Department of
Princeton University for the financial support which enabled me
to pursue my studies towards the completion of my dissertation.
I owe a special debt of gratitude to two of my teachers in
Princeton. Professor Norman Itzkowitz gave invaluable guidance,
suggestions and support throughout my graduate studies.
Professor Martin Dickson read mythesis draft, painstakingly
corrected my mistakes and gave generous help. I also wish to
thank Professor Jerome Clinton who encouraged me throughout my
-iv-
graduate work. I 'wish to thank Professor Michael Cook for
reading parts of my thesis draft and for his perceptive
criticisms.
My thanks go to the staffs of Suleymaniye Library, Topkapi
Palace Library and Archives, Istanbul University Library, Millet
Library, Ba?bakanlik Archives and the library of the Research
Centre for Islamic History, Art and Culture. I also wish to
thank the staffs of Firestone and Jones Libraries of Princeton
University for their kind help.
Professor Bekir Kutiikoglu provided invaluable information
on the Ottoman chronicles and biographical sources relevant for
studying the Kadizadelis. Mr. Suleyman Mollaibrahimoglu gave m^
generous help in reading the Arabic manuscripts. I thank them
both for their assistance.
I also wish to thank Mrs. Banu Yalpxn for typing the

I
manuscript of my dissertation on the computer.
To my parents, my debt of gratitude is beyond expression.
This thesis is dedicated to them.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................ .iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................... vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS......................................... x
NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION...................................... xv
INTRODUCTION.................................................. l'
Ottoman Chronicles 5
Ottoman Biographical Sources 13
Western Sources 15
Secondary Sources on the Kadlzadeli Movement 17
FART I. THE SETTING OF THE MOVEMENT
CHAPTER I
A 3RIEF SURVEY OF THE OTTOMAN CRISIS

IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY..................... 25
The Signs of Decline in the Ottoman Empire 2S
CHAPTER II
THE RESPONSES TO OTTOMAN DECLINE:

THE SAQIZADELiS AS SERI*AT-MINDED REFORMERS................... 36
Two Ideals of Reform in the Ottoman Empire 37
The selefT Background of the Kadxzadelis 41
BirgivT Mehmed Efendi 48
Birgivi Mehmed Efendi’s Works 53
The Controversy on Cash Vakf 55
PART II. THE MOVEMENT IN THREE STAGES
CHAPTER H I
THE KApfZADELi MOVEMENT: THE FIRST STAGE

KADIZADE MEHMED EFENDI vs. 'ABDtfLMECfD SiVASI EFENDt.......... 60
(ca. 1043/1633-1049/1639)
The Origins and Nature of'The Movement: Two Approaches 61
Kadizade Mehmed Efendi 68
KadTzade Mehmed Efendi’s Works 73
'Abdiilmecld Sivasi Efendi 75
'Abdiilmecld Sivasi Efendi’s Works 78

/
Kadizade Efendi vs. Sivasi Efendi: 82

Three Incidents of Dispute
KadTzade Mehmed Efendi’s Views on Political Rule 93
'Abdiilmecrd Sivasi Efendi’s Views on Political Rule 101

CHAPTER IV
THE KAptZADELT MOVEMENT: THE SECOND STAGE

CSTc VANT ErENDi vs. ')>3DCLAHAD NCr I EFENDi................... 107
[1 0 6 0 - 6 1 / 1 6 5 0 - 1 0 7 2 / 1 6 6 1 )
Cstiivanl Efendi’s Leadership of the Movement 108

/
Cstiivanl Mehmed Efendi 113
Cstiivanl Mehmed Efendi’s Works 116
'Abdiilahad Nurl Efendi 118
'Abdiilahad NiTrT Efendi’s Works 122
The Expansion of the KadlzSdeli Movement 124
The Aggressive Acts of the Kadizadelis 129

Against the Sufis
The Refutation of Serh-i TarTkat 134
The Events Leading to the Suppression 142

of the Movement "
-vii-
CHAPTER V
THE KADIZADELl MOVEMENT: THE_THIRD STAGE
van! EFENDI v s . NiYAZl-i MISRI.............................. 149
(ca. 1069/1659-1105/1694)
Van! Efendi and the Kadlzadelis 150
Van! Mehmed Efendi 153
Van! Meljmed Efendi’s Works 157
Van! Efendi in the Ottoman Sources 158
Van! Efendi’s Acts Against the Sufis 163
$eyh Xiyazl-i Mi§rT: The $ufT Leader at the 16&

Third Stage of the KadTzadeli Movement
The Life of NiyazT-i MisrT 168
The Works of NiyazT-i MisrT 173
The Image of VanX Efendi in NiyazX-iMisrX’s Works 176
Van! Efendi and Sabbatai Sevi 179

/
PART III. THE MATTERS Or DISPUTE

BETWEEN THE SUFIS AND THE KADIZADELIS
CHAPTER VI
MATTERS RELATED TO SUrl THOUGHT AND PRACTICES................ 183
The Matters of Controversy 184
Music 187
Devran and Raks (Dance) 194
The Performance of Zikr 208

CHAPTER VII
MATTERS RELATED TO SOCIAL AND^POLITICAL LIFE..................214
Coffee and Tobacco 215
Bribery 225
Shaking Hands and Bowing 231

-viii-
CHAPTER VIII
MATTERS RELATED TO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND PRACTICES........... 237
Invoking Blessings upon the Prophet and his Companions 238
The Melodic Recitation of the Kur’an, the Call to 245

Prayer and Eulogy for the Prophet
The Performance of the Supererogatory Prayers 248

in Congregation
el-emr bi'l-ma’ruf ve’l-nehv *ani *1-miinker 253
Innovations 260
Studying the Rational Sciences and Mathematics 267
The Faith of Pharaoh 275
The Malediction of Yezld 280
The Life of Hizir 285-
The Faith of the Prophet’s Parents 290
The Controversy on $eyh MuhyTddrn Ibn 'Arab! 298
Visiting Tombs > 302
CONCLUSION.................................................. 308
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................ 315
-ix-
ERRATA LIST
Erratum Correction Paqe number Line/footnot<

number
Variorum Reprints, Variorum Reprints, -28 Pn. 58
322-345 1986, 322-345
occured occurred 28 L. 15
ofSiyasetu*s- of Siylsettt*s- 45 L. 3
Serliys Ser'xve
o the Kurban to the Kur*an 59 L. 19

The Melamxs the Melamxs 65 L. 7 '
inlfuenced influenced 66 L. 18
(xman) the (xman), the
vision of God vision of God 78 L. 15
JJadxzade, Tac, Ibid., fols. 94 Fn. 205
fols. 7a-7b. 7a-7b.
cihad) (cihad) 97 L. 13
(d. 505/111) (d. 505/1111) 122 L. 14
sumonning summoning 132 L. 27
kelirae-i (kelime-i 133
sahadet) L. 1
sahadet)
Cemazxyelewel (Cemazxyelewel 143 L. 16

10667narch 1656 1066/Harch 1656)
[nact-$erxf) (na‘t-x serxf) 146 L. 19
tomb of saints tombs of saints 165 L. 19
1060/1650. 1060/1650, 169 Fn, 380
unlawfulnes unlawfulness 199 L. 2
(d. 505/111) (d. 505/1111) 201 L. 3
opposed opposes 222 L. 19
apellation appellation 299 L. 5

He iswith He is with 300 L. 4
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
'Abdx Pa?a, Vekavi'name 'Abdurrahman 'Abdl Pa?a,

Vekavi'n»ine-i Sultan Mehmed Rabi' |
A. NurT. Peveran 'Abdiilahad NurT Efendi,

gi Hakki*d-Peverani*s-Suf
A. Nurx, Te*dxb 'Abdiilahad NurT Efendi,

Te *dibu*1-Mutemerridin
A. Rif*ats Pavha Ahmed Rif'at,

Davhatu11-Mesavih ma' Zeyl
'AIT Cemalx, Risale ZenbTlli 'All CemalT Efendi,

Deveran-i SufTvenin Cevazxna Pair
Risale / :
Arjomand, Shadow of God Said Amir Arjomand,

The Shadow of God and the Hidden
Imam: Religion. Political Order,
and Societal Change in Shi'ite Iran
from the Beginning to 1890
'Ata’T, Hada’ik Nev’Tzade 'Ata’T,

Hada* ikii* 1-Haka* ik fi Tekmxleti’s-
Sakavik
Atsxz, comp., Biblivografva Nihal Atsxz,. camp.,

Istanbul Kutuphanelerine Gore
Birgili Mehmed Efendi
Biblivografvasi
AyvansarayT, HadTka Huseyin AyvansarayT,

HadTkatii *1-Cevami'
AyvansarayT, Mesavih Huseyin AyvansarayT,

Terciine-i MesSvih
BirgivT, TarTkat BirgivT Mehmed Efendi,

Tarikat-i Muhaamedi— e Te retimesi.
trans. Celal Yxldxrxm
Cook, Population Michael A. Cook,

Population Pressure in Rural
Anatolia: 1450-1600
Covel, "Extracts" John Covel,

Extracts from the Piaries of Pr.
John Covel:1670-1679
-x-
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Duzdag, Ebussuud Efendi Sevhulislam Ebussuud Efendi
Fetvalan Isiginda 16.Asir Turk
Havati. ed. Ertugrul Duzdag
2
II The Encvclopaed-i» of Tglam.
second edition
Farrukh, Ibn Taimiwa Ibn Taimiwa on Public and

Private Law in Islam, trans.
Omar A. Farrukh
Fleischer, Mustafa 'Air Cornell E. Fleischer,

Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the
Ottoman Empire: the Historian
Mustafa 'SIT f1541-1600)
Golpmarli, Mevlevriik Abdulbaki Golpmarli, '

Mevlana’dan sonra Mevlevilik
iA tslam Ansiklooedisi
inalcik, "Lawgiver" Halil inalcik,

"Suleiman the Lawgiver and
Ottoman Law"
inalcik, "Military" Halil inalcik,
"Military and Fiscal
Transformation in the
Ottoman Empire"
Inalcik, Ottoman Empire Halil inalcik,

The Ottoman Empire: the Classical
Age. 1300-1600
Kadizade, Devran Kadizade Mehmed,

Risale-i Kadizade BerSve Devran
Kadizade, irsad Kadizade Mehmed,

irsadu*l-'Ukul
Kadizade, Kami *a Kagizade Mehmed,

Kami'atu'1-Bid'at
Kadizade, Tac Kadizade Mehmed,

Tacu'r-Resa'il ve MinharuM-
Vesa’il
Kafadar, Cemal Kafadar,

"Economic Imagination" "When Coins Turned into Drops of
Dew and Bankers Became Robbers of
Shadows: The Boundaries.of
Ottoman Economic Imagination at
the end of the Sixteenth Century"
-Xi-
Katib Celebi, Balance Eatib Celebi,
The Balance of Truth, trans.
6. Lewis
Katib Qelebi, MTzan Katib Celebi,

Mizami’l-Hakk fi thtivari’l-Ahakk
Laoust, "Mamloufes" Henri Laoust,

"Le Hanbalisme sous les Mamlouks
Bahrides" '
Lamekani, Cevap Huseyin Lamekani Efendi,

Belgrad~ Sevh Munirl Efendi*nin
tstanbul Sevhlerine Karsi
i'tirazlanaa r.5melranl Huseyin
Efendi*nin CeygpJLari
Mandaville, "Cash Waqf* Jon E. Mandaville,

"Usurious Piety: The Cash Waqf
Controversy in the Ottoman Empire
Martin, "Khalwati Order" B. G. Martin,

"A Short History of the Khalwati
Order of Dervishes"
M. LutfT, Tuhfe Mustafa Lu^fT,

Tuhfetu*l-cAsrr fI Menakibi*!-
Mi^rT
M. Nazml, Hedive Mehmed Nazml Efendi,

Hedivetu *1-ihvan
M. Siireyya, Sicil Mehmed Sureyya,

Sicill-i 'OsmanT
M. Tahir, OM Mehmed Tahir,

eOsmanli Mu’ellifieri
NaTma, Tarlh Mustafa Na'Ima,

Tarltj-i Na1Ima
N. Mi§rT, Turuk Niyazl-i Mx$rX,

Turuk- 1 'Alivenin Zikir ve
SvTnin Men* Risalesi
Ocak, Hizir Ahmet Yasar Ocak,

tsIam-Turk jpanfflan n d a HlZir
Yahut Hizir-ilvas Kultu
Pakalm, Sozluk Mehmet Zeki Pakalm,

Osmanli Tarih Devimleri ve
Terimleri Sozlugii
PegevI, Tarlh PegevT ibrahxm,
Tarlh-i PecevT
Ra?id, TarTh Mehmed Ra?id,

Tarlh-i Rasid
Redhouse Redhouse Yeni Turkce-ingilizce

Sozl-Qk
Rycaut, History Paul Rycaut,

The History of the Present State
of the Ottoman Empire
Scholem, Sabbatai Gerschom Scholem,

Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical
Messiah t
Silahdar,
• Tarlh
O Silahdar Mehmed Aga,
Tarlh-i Silahdar
Sivasi, Biza'at 'Abdiilmecld Sivasi,

Biza'atu*1-Va'izln
Sivasi, Purer 'Abdiilmecld Sivasi,

Piireru'l-'Aka'id
Sivasi, Purer...Gurer 'Abdulmecld Sivasi,

Piirerii'l-'Aka'id ve Gurer
Kull Sa’ik ve Ka'id
Sivasi, Leta’if 'Abdulmecld Sivasi,

Leta*ifu'1-Ezhar ve Leza'izii'l-
Esmar
Sivasi, Mesavih 'Abdulmecld Sivasi,

Nesavihii'1-Muluk
Seyhl, Vekavi' Mehmed Seyhl,

Vekavi'u'1-Puzala
Thevenot, Empire Jean Thevenot,

L'Empire du Grand Turc Vu par un
Su.iet de Louis XIV: Jean Thevenot
Trimingham, Sufi Orders J. Spencer Trimingham,

The Sufi Orders in Islam
'Ussaklzade, Zevl t. 9aslb 'Ussaklzade,

?evlii's-Sakavik
Ustiivanl, *Aka* id OstuvanI Mehmed Efendi,

'Aka’id ve 'ibadata 'A'id Risale
-Xlll-
tistuvam, Feva’id tlstuvani Mehmed Efendi,
Kitab-i Fevg’id-i Keblr
Osûvanr, FevS* id...Fera* id CsûvSnX Mehmed Efendi,

Feva*idfi’l-^mgir ve
Fera*id5'1-Le *51T
VanI, MuhvT Van! Mehmed Efendi,

Mufryl’s-Sunnet Mumitu^-Bid’at
Vani, Bid^tler Van! Mehmed Efendi,
Tasawufl Bid’atlerden Sakmmava
Da’ir Risale
Vecihl. Tarlh
o Vecihl Hasan Efendi,
Tarlh-i
U Vecihl
Zebldl, Tecrid Zeyneddln Ahmed ez-Zebldl,

Sahih-i Buhari Muhtasan Tecrid-i
Sarih Tercemesi ve Serhi. trans.
Ahmed Na'im and Kamil Miras
Zilfi, "Revivalism" Madeline C. Zilfi,

"The Kadizadelis: Discordant
Revivalism in Seveneenth-Century
Istanbul"
-xiv-
NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION
In this thesis, I have followed the transliteration system
in tslaa Ansiklooedisi except that g is used besides g and d is
used besides z. Words of Arabic .and Persian origin will be
spelled according to their Turkish pronunciation. Arabic
abstract nouns ending with a ta marbuta. such as seri'a. sunna
and tarlka will be spelled with a final t: serT*at. sunnet.
tarxkat. In transliterating place names outside Turkey, I have
referred to the second edition of The Encyclopaedia of Tslam.
INTRODUCTION
Approximately between the years 103SA630-1102/1690, a
religious movement took place in the Ottoman Empire with the
stated purpose of restoring the purity of the Islam extant during
the time of the Prophet and the Four Righteous Caliphs. This
could be realized by rejecting all religious practices which had
emerged in subsequent periods as bid*ats (innovations), and by
targeting the activities of the Sufis, the most obvious bearers
of these bidfats in seventeenth-century Ottoman society. The7
movement came to be known as the KadTzadeli movement after its
leader Kadizade Mehmed Efendi (d. 1045/1635). The followers of.
Kadizade are
sometimes referredto as the FakTs (legists) but
1
more often as the Kadlzadelis in the sources.
/
)
The movement, contemporary with the reigns of Murad IV
(1032/1623-1049/1640), Ibrahim (1049/1640-1058/1^648) and Mehmed
IV (1058/1648-1099/1687), is best studied in the form "of
disputations between the KSdlzadelis and their HalvetT $ufT
adversaries. The mosques were the usual settings for such
disputes. Sometimes the leaders of both sides delivered their
sermons from pulpits in the presence of the sultans, high-ranking
officials and sevhulislams. In any case, the mosque provided a
spiritual environment where a large audience could hear the
controversial ideas of the Kadizadelis and their Halvet! Sufi
rivals. In effect, the sermons could influence a great number of
i people on religious and even political issues.
I
i.H.Uzunpar?ili, Osmanli Tarihi. 3d ed. (Ankara: Turk
Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1983), 3, pt. 1:354-366.
The political and the ideological setting for these
disputes, as well as certain sixteenth-century antecedents, :
[notably the debates on cash vakf between the KSdizadeli ;
precursor BirgivT Mehmed Efendi (d. 981/1573) and his rival the
gevhiil ialflip Ebussu'ud Efendi (d. 982/1574)] will be explored in :
Part I of this thesis. Part II will present a chronological view
of this movement in three stages centering, respectively, around
the debates between pidTzade Mehmed Efendi (d. 1045/1635) and
’Abdulmecld Sivasi Efendi (d. 1049/1639), UstuvanT Mehmed Efendi

/
(d. 1072/1661) and ‘Abdiilahad Nuri Efendi (d.1061/1650), and
finally, Van! Mehmed Efendi (d. 1096/1685) and NiyazT-i MisrT
Efendi (d. 1105/1694). Part III will examine the specific issues
under contention. The Conclusion will present an overall review
of the KadTzadeli movement with the purpose of assessing the

t
movement’s success and legacy. Here, I will also demonstrate the
movement’s significance for Ottoman society and intellectual
litfe. A brief discussion of the UsulI-AhbarT controversy in
seventeenth-century Iran will also be presented in comparison
with the KadTzadeli movement. But first, let us examine the
sources of this study, namely, the Ottoman chronicles and
biographical works; the accounts of western historians, diplomats
and travelers contemporary with the Kadlzadelis; and works
produced by modern historians.
2 "
For a discussion of the clashes within the religious
establishment in seventeenth-century Iran, see Said Amir
Arjomand, The Shadow of find and t.ho Hidden Imam: Religion.
Political Order, and Societal Change in Shi’ite Iran from the
Beginning to 1890 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).
Obviously, the * most important sources for studying the
■j
j KadTzadeli movement are the works written by the Kadlzadelis
] themselves and their adversaries. One can have a clearer

i
| perception of the movement by examining these works through three
] generations. Some of these risales are devoted to a specific

a
subject. Examples of this kind are Kadizade Mehmed Efendi’s
3 * '
Tacii’r-Resa’il ve Minhacu’l-Vesa’il which reflects his views on
political rule, ’Abdiilahad NurT Efendi’s (d. 1061/1650) risale on

4
the faith of the Prophet’s parents and NiyazT-i MisrT’s (d. /
5
1105/1694) risales on the life of Hizir. Others deal with a
variety of topics such as matters of faith, spiritual knowledge
and religious obligations. They often include some of the
controversial issues between the Kadlzadelis and the HalvetT Sufi

6 '
sevhs. Finally, there are some risales written by Kadizade and
i 7
UstiivanT which might be described as books of catechism. They
treat subjects related to ritual worship (namaz), ablutions, the

i
call to prayer, fasting, almsgivihg, pilgrimage, etc. A more'
3
Kadizade Mehmed Efendi, Tacu’r-Resa’il ve Minhacu’l-
Vesa* il. Siileymaniye L., MS. Haci Mahmud Efendi 1926.
4
'Abdiilahad Nuri Efendi, Te *dlbii’1-Mutemerridin.
Suieysaniye L., MS. Esad Efendi 3503.
5
NiyazT-i Misrl, Risale-i Hizrive-i KadTme.
.
Siileymaniye L., MS. Pertev Pasa 620/10, fols. 40a-46a; Ris51e-i
Hizrive-i Cedlde. MS. Pertev Pasa 620/11, fols. 46a-48b.
° 6
We can cite the following works as examples:
Kadizade Meijmed Efendi, 1rsadu’1-’Ukul. Siileymaniye L., MS.
Fatih 5407/2; Vanl Mehmed Efendi, MuhvI *s-Sunnet Miim~t.ii*1-Bid ’at,
Siileymaniye L., MS. Kasidecizade 663/1.
7
KadTzade Mehmed Efendi, fman ve Namaz Risalesi.
Sulsyssniys i,.3 MS. fy® v 48T!j t^stuvEni Ef?ndit
J_ilmihal, Siileymaniye L., MS. Yazma Bagi^lar 43.
detailed description of these works will be given with the
biographies of the leaders. I will use these sources extensively
in Part III of this thesis which focuses on the controversial
issues between the Kadlzadelis

• * and the W
Halvet? Sufis.
•
Before examining the accounts of the Ottoman chronicles, we
should deal with Katib Celebi’s (d. 1067/1657) Mlzanii *1-
Hak fI ihtivari11 Ahakk which is an indispensable

for source
8
studying the intellectual background of the KadTzadeli movement.
The author himself has been KadTzade’s student between the years
1038/1618-29 - 1039/1629-30 and 1041/1631-32 - 1043/1633-34 and
witnessed the later public manifestations of the controversy
until his death in 1067/1657 as an intellectual living in
Istanbul, the arena of the most heated polemics and
confrontations. His work, written to urge both sides to', calm
down and the authorities not to let either side gain the upper
hand in this contention, treats nineteen controversial issues

I
between the Kadlzadelis and the Sufis, such as music, the dances
of the Sufis, the consumption of tobacco and coffee, innovations,
ordering good and forbidding evil, etc. I havenot been able to
find any mention of some of these issues in therisales written
by either side on.these subjects; however, those may have
remained at the level of oral culture of the time to which Katib
Celebi naturally had access. To put matters in historical
perspective, he also describes the disputes between BirgivT
Mehmed Efendi and Ebussu'ud Efendi from a century earlier. <

I
In this thesis, I will refer to the English translation
of this work: Katib C e l e b i , The Balance of Truth, trans.
Geoffrey Lewis (London: G.Allen and Unwin, 1957).
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Ottoman. Chronicles
We can categorize the accounts of Ottoman chronicles with
respect to their approach to the KSdlzadelis, i.e. indifferent;
neutral or negative. Let us first examine the views of the
chroniclers who maintain an indifferent stance while treating the
Kadizadelis. Pepevl ibrahlm Efendi (d. 1059/1649?) whose work
covers the period of 927/1520-1049/1639, mentions the
introduction of coffee and tobacco in the Ottoman Empire but does
not refer to the KadTzadeli efforts to ban their consumption. He >
gives brief biographies of Birgivl and Sivasl Efendi enumerating
them among the renowned sevhs during the reign of Suleyman the
Magnificent and Murad IV, respectively. PepevT does not speak of
the Ka4Izade1i movement at all in his history, not even within
the biography of Sivasl Efsndi who was the main adversary of

9
Kadizade. Similarly, Kara<?elebizade 'Abdulazlz Efendi (d.
1068/1657) records the appearance of tobacco in his history. He
also mentions Sivasl Efendi’s death, without referring to the

10
Kadizadelis.
Among the Ottoman chroniclers who adopt a neutral approach
to the KSdlzadelis we can count Solakzade Meijmed HeademT Qelebi
(d. 1067/1657), another seventeenth-century historian. He does
not give a full description of the Kaîzadeli movement in his
history, but mentions Kadizade Mehmed Efendi when he relates the

9
PepevI ibrahlm, Tarih-i Pecevl (Istanbul, 1283/1866-67),
1:363-365, 467; 2: 357-358.
10
Karacpelebizade ’Abdulazlz Efendi, Tarxh-i Ravzatu’l-
Ebrar (Bulak, 1248/1832-33), 501, 598, 607. °
great fire of Istanbul and the prohibition of tobacco. Solakzade
notes that Kaejiziide influenced Murad IV to prohibit the
consumption of coffee and tobacco as ehl-i tezkir or advisor of
the sultan. According to the account of the historian, Kadizade
accompanied Murad IV until Konya during the Revan campaign. He

11
fell ill, however, and returned to Istanbul where he died.
Katib Qelebi, in addition to his Mizanu’l-Hak. which
focuses directly on the issues raised by the movement, deals with
certain related incidents within the framework of his chronicle '
rezleke when he narrates, for instance, the destruction of
coffee-houses and the prohibition of tobacco. He also expands,
as a chronicler, on the confrontations between Kadizade and
Sivasl in Yeni Cami and on the refutation of Kura Mehmed’s (d.

V
1084/1673) commentary on Tarikat-i Muhammedive. a principal work

12
of Birgivl, by the sultan’s order. I will treat this subject
in Part II, Chapter IV.

\
‘Abdurrahman 'Abdl Pasa (d. 1103/1692) mentions the
Kadizadelis in his work entitled Vekavi‘name which relates the
events between the years 1054/1648-1093/1682. Under the events
of the year 1063/1652-53, he relates the efforts of Kurd Mehmed
to "falsify" certain parts ‘of Tar1 kat-i Muhamaorf■»ve which gives
the impression that 'Abdl Pasa respects Birgivl and considers
n
Solakzade Mehmed, Solakzade Tarlhi (Istanbul,
1297/187,9-80), 752-754. ’ '
12
Katib Celebi, Fezleke (Istanbul, 1287/1870-71), 2:154-
155; 197, 383.
Tarlkat-i Muhammedive as a valuable
work the intellectual
13
integrity of which ought to be preserved. However, 'Abdl Pa?a
can also be critical of the Kadizadelis. After describing
ifstiivanl, Seyyld Mustafa and Turk Ahmed as famous preachers in
the mosques of Istanbul, for instance, the historian relates that
they ended up in exile since they caused gossip and disturbed

14
public peace by their sermons. ‘Abdl Pa?a mentions Van!
Efendi’s services and influence as va'iz-i suifcanl (preacher of
the sultan) in the palace. From his account, it appears that

15
Mehmed IV treated Vanl Efendi favorably. In general, *AbdI
Pasa does not have a negative approach to the Kadizadelis; he
even displays respect and appreciation for certain intellectual
figures related to the movement.
Miineccimbasi Ahmed’s (d. 1113/1702) world history starts
from the creation and continues up to the year 1095/1683-84. The
historian does not refer to the Kadizadelis in his description of
the prohibition of coffee and tobacco - an issue in which they
were deeply involved, as we shall see. He notes, however, that
when Koprulu Mehmed Pasa became grand vezlr, the Kadizadelis had
already set out to fight with the Sufis and to demolish their
tekkes. Shortly afterwards, their leaders were exiled to Cyprus

16
and the movement was suppressed.
13
‘Abdurrahman ‘Abdl Pasa, Vekavi‘name-i Sultan Mehmed
Rabil, Suleymaniye L., MS. Hafid Efendi 250, fol.22b.
14
Ibid., fol.49a.
15
Ibid., fols.107b, 125a, 129a, 152b.
16
Miineccimbasi Ahmed, Cami ‘u ’d-Diivel. Bayezid Library,
MS. Bayezid 5020, fols.. 1145a, 1181a.
Sari Mehmed Papa’s (d. 1129/1717) Zubde-i Vekavi’at
begins with the year 1066/1655-56 when the KatjTzadeli movement
had reached its zenith and was finally suppressed. The history
continues until the year 1115/1703-4. Sarx Mehmed Pasa deals
only with the third stage of the movement through references to
Van! Efendi which demonstrates that he was held in favor by

17 . .
Mehmed IV.
The work of Mehmed Rasid (d. 1148/1735), which is a
supplement to Na'Ima’s history, records some incidents again '
related to Vahi Efendi. Thet historian’s account reflects the
sultan’s favorable attitude towards Van!-. Rasid notes such
praiseworthy qualities of VanT Efendi as his unequalled knowledge
in tefsTr and hadIs as well as his eloquent speech. The
historian adds that Vanl’s reproachful manners towards

various
18
dignitaries eventually caused him to lose the sultan’s favor.
A number of other Ottoman chroniclers, on the other hand,
adopt a clearly negative viewpoint towards the pidxzadelis.
Among them we can definitely count tfa'Tma (d. 1128/1716) who
gives the most extensive account of the movement. Perhaps due to
this detailed treatment, Na'ima’s account has become the basic
source on the Eadizadeli for most of the modern scholars.
However, for the earlier stages of the movement, Na'xma himself
appears to have relied on the chronicle ofVecxhT Hasan Efendi
17
Sari Mehmed Pasa, Zubde-i Vekavi’at. Suleymaniye L.,
MS. Esad Efendi 2382, fols. 9b, 43a.
18
Heomed Ra?id, Tarxh-i Rasid (Istanbul, 1282/1685-86),
1:134, 139, 483.
(d. 1081/1670) which covers the period of 1046/1636-37 -
1073/1662-63. The historian Veclhl treats the movement of the
Kadlzideli under the events of the year 1066/1655-56. He notes
that when Murad IV put a ban on tobacco, Kadizade made up
rational feklT) and traditional (nafclT) proofs to justify this
prohibition. His aim was to become attached to the highly
exalted sovereign. After Kadizade passed away, his followers
began to run after fame and high positions. To realize this end,
they declared that the performers of certain acts such as the
melodic recitation of the call to prayer and the Kur’an, invoking >
blessings upon the Prophet and his companions during the Friday
prayer, innovations,the dances of the Sufis and performing the
prayers of Rega’ib, Berat and Kadir in congregation, would be

19
infidels. In fact, these polemicists could not provide any
1
definite proof for their claims, according to Veclhl who also
points out that the KSdlzadeli were hostile against the Halvetl
dervishes in particular. They had even decided to destroy the
dervish lodges in. Istanbul and her outskirts (Konstanti-
nlye ve haric-i sehlrde olan tekke ve hangahlan cem'-i keÎr ile
hadm etmeye karar verip...). In the end, their leaders were

20
exiled to Cyprus and the movement was suppressed.
19
Berat; the sacred night between the 14th and the
15th of the month of $a*ban; tfadir: the 27th night of Ramazan,
when the Kur’an was revealed; Rega’ib: the night before the first
Friday in the month of Receb,. when Prophet Muhammed was conceived.
See Bahadir Alkim and others, eds., Redhouse Yeni Tiirkce-
ingilizce Sozluk. 2d ed. (Istanbul: Redhouse Yaymevi, 1974), 157,
577, 944.
20
Veclhi Ijasan Efendi, Tarlh-i Veclhl, Suleymaniye L.,
MS. Hamidiye 917, fols. 49b-50a~ °
Behpetl ibrahlm Efendi (d. 1094/1683) who was the imam of
Kopruluzade Hafiz Ahmed Paâ mentions.the KaijTzadeli3 their
movement in his history written in 1093/1682. fie describes the
Eadizadeli .movement from its very beginning. According to
Behpstl, the purpose of âd^zade and his rival Sivasl was none
other than to become renowned. Be then enumerates various
discussion topics between the two leaders- such as coffee-drinking
and tobacco-smoking and mentions the suppression of the movement.
Beh<petl relates some anecdotes about Vahi Efendi and his

21
followers which appears in Na'Ima’s history as well.
In his TarIn. Na'Ima relies on the accounts of Veclhl,
BehpetT and Katib Qelebi, but expands on them, using other oral
informants and written sources such as the non-extant chronicle

22
of M a’anzade Huseyin Bey (d. 1102/1690) and the Vekavi'namo 0f
23
Sarihu’l Menarzade Ahmed Efendi (d. 1066/1656). N a 'Ia a notes
that since the period of the Four Righteous Caliphs, clashes
occurred between the Sufis Ierbab-i tarlkl and religious scholars
who interpreted the outward meaning of the serl’at. t'ulema-i
zahir). At each epoch, people running after fame enlivened such
disputes in the name of applying the principle of el-emr hi *1
aa’ruf ve’l nehv ’ani *1-mfinlrer. According to N a 'Iia , what
I 21
: BehcetI ibrahlm, Tarlh-i Sulale-i KSorulu. Koprulu L.,
i II.Kisim, MS. 212, fols. 5b-10a.
| 22
i Ma’anzade was an old and knowledgeable nan educated in
| the Palace School (Enderun). Na’Ima himself has seen Ma'anzSde’s
work. Mustafa Na'Ima, TarTh-i Na’Tma (Istanbul, 1280/1863-64),
5:295. ' °
23
Sarihu’1-Menarzade’s work was completed in the year
1066/1655. See Uzuncarsili.Osmanli Tarihi. 2d ed. (Ankara: Turk
I Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1977), 3, pt.2:500.
10
Kadizade and Sivasr didwas to renew theold disputes. The
historian then describes thesetwo se-y^s referring to Katib
Celebi’s account. He enumerates the matters of dispute between

24
the KiuJIzadelis and the Sufis in 16 items. Na'Ima
claims that during the early years of Mehmed IV’s reign,
the Kadizadelis became renowned and gained such clout that they
began to control certain vakfs and immobile goods through
collaboration with usurers, stcckpilers and tradesmen. It was
particularly the halberdiers, gardeners and door keepers who
provided the liaison between the KagTzadelis and the palace,
according to Na'Ima who also describes the hostile acts of the
Kadizadelis against theHalvetls, the Mevlevls and other
dervishes. Na'Ima’s negative approach to the Kadizadelis becomes
clear from the pejorative tone of the anecdotes he relates about
them. Finally, Na'Ima

describes the events leading to the
25
suppression of the movement. '
i
t ■
Another chronicle which relies on Veclhl Efendi’s work and,
consequently, reiterates its negative attitude is that of
Silahdar Mehmed Aga (d. 1136/1724). He describes this group as
ehl-i sunnet ve’l ceaa'at whose leader was the preacher Kadizade.
Silahdar. too, mentions the attempt of the Kadizadelis to

26
demolish the Sufi lodges.
24
Na'Ima, Tarlh. 6:21-8-222.
25 "
Ibid., 5:53-59; 5:264-270; 6:226-230.
26 Silahdar Fmdiklili Mehmed Aga, Silahdar Tarlhi
(Istanbul, 1928), 1: 57-59.
11
j Finally, the well-known Ottoman writer and traveler Evliya’
1
I Celebi (d. 1095/1684) provides us with a rare piece of evidence
] on the influence of the £a<Jizadeiis outside Istanbul when he
| relates an anecdote about a Kadizadeli follower from Tire who
] attempted to apply the principle of nehv-i munker. Evliya’

j
i Celebi views this act of the particular Kadizadeli with scorn,

I
] stating that the duty and the right to
this apply principle
] 27
j belongs exclusively to the ruler and his officials.
1
1
I As we have seen, some Ottoman chroniclers such as Katib
Celebi and Na’Ima view the Kadizadeli movement as the product of
clashes between the §ufls Ierbab-i ârik) and the orthodox,
’ulema* (*ulema’-i zahir). According to Na’Ima, the prime reason
behind these disputes was the greed for fame and high positions.
Naturally, it would be impossible to explain a social movement
only by personal motives. The information in Ottoman chronicles
needs to be therefore combined with the works written by the §ufx

i
I
and Kadizadeli leaders themselves. In this way, one could
provide a deeper insight into the movement.
27
Evliya’ Celebi, Sevahatname (Tgr~fo-i S ewah). In the
Vienna MS. (Fliigel, no. 1281), the name of the work appears as
Tarlfo-i Seyyah ("Traveller’s Chronicle"). See El* s.v. "Ewliya
Celebi," by J.H.Mordtmann-(H.W.Duda). The above-mentioned
anecdote appears in Evliya’ Celebi’s description of Bitlis,
forthcoming as Evliva Chelebi in Bitlis. ed., B.Dankoff, to be
published by E.J.Brill.
12
Ottoman Biographical Sources
Among the Ottoman biographers, the most important ones for
our purpose are 'Ata’T (d. 1045/1635), 'Uccaklzade (d. 1136/1723)

28
and Seyhi (d. 1145/1732). They were contemporaries or near
| contemporaries of the KagTzadelis. 'Ata’T ’s work, which was
5 completed between the years 1042/1632-1044/1634, is a
j continuation of Ahmed Ta?kopruluzide’s (d. 968/1561) Sakaviku’n-

i
| Nu*man iye. In his work, 'Aâ’i gives the biographies of the
j 'ulemal and mesavih who lived during the period of 965/1557-
1044/1634. Both 'U$$akTza<de and §eyhT wrote a supplement (zevl)

29
to 'Ata’I ’s book. I have also referred to later biographers
such as Mehmed Tahir (d. 1926) and Mehmed Sureyya (d. 1909).
In general, the biographers do not care to relate the lives
of their subjects within the context of a confrontation.
Instead, they give individual cases, using respectful words for

i
both the Kadizadelis and the Sufis, praising their rich knowledge
28
Nev’Tzade ‘Ata’T, Hada’iku’l-Haka’ilf f~ TekmTleti’s-
Sakavik (Istanbul, 1268/1851-52); Ibrahlm Haslb 'Ussaklzade,
Zeylii’s-Sakavilj:. Suleymaniye L., MS. Celebi Abdullah 260; Mehmed
I
Seyhi, VekSvi*ii 1-Fuzala. Suleymaniye L., MS. Hamidiye 939.
29
For translations and supplements of Ta$kopruluzade’s
work,see Behcet Gonul, "Istanbul Kutuphanelerinde al-Saka’ik al-
Nu'maniya Tercume ve Zeyilleri," Turkivat Mecmuasi 8 (1945): 136-
168. For 'Ussaklzade’s life see Mehmed Tahir. ^)smanla Mu’ellifleri
'Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1333-1343), 3:17; Salim, Tezkire.
Suleymaniye L., MS. Lala Ismail 317, fols. 97a-97b. For Sey^jI’s
biography see Mehmed Sureyya, Sicill-i'OsmanI (Istanbul: Maarif
Basimevi, 1308/1890-91), 3:183; M.TShir, OJ4 3:74; SaLim, Tezkire.
fols.171a-172a.
13
and virtues. An exception is Mehmed Tahir who finds Ka$Izade and
30
Van! "incapable of uniting the hearts of Muslims."
Besides the above-mentioned sources, two h&giographic works
are worth mentioning. Mehmed NazmI Efendi’s (d. 1112/1700)
Hediyetii’l-ihvan is an essential source on the biographies and
| legends of the HalvetT §ufl sevns. particularly on the Semslye

i
| branch of the order. The author, who was himself a disciple of
j
| both 'Abdiilmecld SivasT and 1Abdiilahad Nurl, served in the
1 capacity of preacher and sevh. In his work, M.NazmI Efendi /
relates two confrontations between Kadizade and Sivasl which we
shall examine in Part II, Chapter III of this thesis. As a
member of the Halveti order, he praises the §ufl sevhs but does
3l”
not take a negative stance towards the Kadizadelis.
/
M.Liitfl, a sevh of the Misriye branch of the order, wrote a
work in the nineteenth century, consisting of the lives and
miracles of Niyazl-i MisrT, his disciples and other sevhs who

y
served in the lodges in Bursa and the island of Lemnos. The
author also has passages on VanT’s life and the aggressive acts
32
of his followers towards the Sufis in Bursa.
30
M.Tahir, OM, 1:402; 2:50.
3!
Mehmed Najmi Efendi. Hedivetu*1-ifevan. Suleymaniye
L., MS. Haci Mahmud Efendi 2413. For M.Na?mI Efendi’s biography
see H .Ayvansarayl, Tercume-i Mesavih. Suleymaniye L., MS. Esad
Efendi 1375. °
32
Mustafa Lutfx, Tuhfetu’1-*Asri fl Menakibi *1-Misr~.
Bursa, 1309/1891-92.'
14
Western Sources
There is also a group of seventeenth-century works by
European diplomats and travelers which represent primary sources
for Ottoman religious history of the KSdlzadeli era. Let us
examine some principal ones here:
J .Thevenot (d. 1667), a French traveler during the time of
Louis XIV, has

sections on Murad IV’s measures concerning
33
tobacco-consumption.
Paul Rycaut (d. 1700), who spent eighteen years in the
Ottoman dominions as a diplomat, mentions the Kadizadelis as one
of the new "sects" among the Turks. In his view, these groups
are dangerous since they may lead to revolutionary tendencies in
the state and draw followers from among the soldiers. Rycaut
provides detailed information on the Kadizadelis. His account is
extremely confused, however, and should therefore be regarded

34
cautiously.
D ’Arvieux (d. 1702) relates a new military prohibition
which the sultan put into effect following Vanl Efendi’s advice.
: Accordingly, military commanders were forbidden to have young

]
1 33
I J.Thevenot.L*Empire du Grand Turc Vu oar Un Suiet de
■ Louis XIV: Jean Thevenot (Paris; Calmann-Levy, 1963), 173-175. I
1 will examine the accounts of western sources on these specific
topics in Part III which deals with the controversial issues.
34
Paul Rycaut, The History of the Present State of the
Ottoman Empire. 5th ed. (London, 1682), 242-243. He spent seven
years in Istanbul as "Secretary to the Lord Ambassador." He was
consul in Izmir for eleven years.
boys in their company during campaigns. These soldiers were
expected to have reached a certain age and had to have a beard in
order to carry arms. Moreover, they were forbidden from luxuries
such as cushions in their beds. As we shall see, the sultan
would ban the practice of visiting tombs and the dances of the
Sufis under VanT’s influence. This military restriction, too,
indicates the effectual presence of -this preacher in the

35
palace.
The same presence is noted by Dr.John Covel, chaplain to
the British ambassador in Istanbul who spent six and a half years
there, between 1670-1677. In his account, Dr.Covel describes
Van! Efendi’s physical qualities as well as his influence on the
closedown of taverns and the prohibition of the Sufis' meetings.
He notes,however, that these strict measures of Van! were not

36
very effective.
35
Louis Laurent d'Arvieux, Memoires du Chevalier
d ’Arvieux, 6 vols. (Paris: C.J.B. Delespine, 1735), 4:390-391.
D ’Arvieux was the extraordinary envoy of the king in Istanbul.
He also stayed in Izmir on duty between the years 1653-1657.
36
John Covel, "Extracts from the Diaries of Dr.John
Covel, 1670-1679," in Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant,
ed. J.Theodore Bent, Hakluyt Society no.87 (London, 1893), 268-
269.
16
Secondary Sources on the Kadizadeli Movement
A number of nineteenth and twentieth century western
writers have taken interest in the EadXzadelis. Von Hammer (a.
1856) describes the aggressive .acts of the Kadizadelis against
the Sufis as well as the suppression of the movement. He also
mentions Van! Efendi’s influence on the prohibition of visiting
tombs and the conversion of the self-proclaimed Jewish messiah
Sabbatai Sevi (d. 1676) to Islam. Hammer’s information on the
Kadizadelis is primarily based on the accounts of Na'Ima and

37
Rasid.
Another western author, F.W.Hasluck (d. 1920) notes "the
anti-dervish movement of 1656-1676" in the second volume of his

! 38
work. According to him, Kopriilu Mehmed Pasa and Fazil Ahmed
Pasa stood against "heterodoxy" in religion which they saw as a
I product of Sufi influences. Nonetheless, Sufi orders spread in
| this period. Hasluck gives the example of a KadirT sevh named
; Isma'il Rum! (d. 1053/1643) who established at least 48 convents.

i
| The author also mentions Van! Efendi whom he describes as a
! devout follower of Sunni principles and an enemy of the Sufis.
| Hasluck mainly draws on von Hammer and the works of western

i
! 37
Joseph von Hammer, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches
(Vienna: C.A. Hartleben’s Verlage, i829-1830; reprint, Graz:
Akademischen Druck, 1963), 5:163-164, 528-531; 6:5-8, 182-185
(page references are to renrint edition).
38
F.W.Hasluck.Christianity and Talam under the Sultans,
ed. Margaret M.Hasluck (New York: Octagon Books, 1973), 2:420-
423.
17
authors such as Rycaut and Ubicini. His account should
therefore be treated cautiously.
A . Galante (d. 1961) refers to VanT Efendi in his account of
the Sabbatian movement. He notes that Van! was present at the
meeting of the council (divan) where it was decided to bring
Sabbatai Sevi to Edirne for interrogation.. VanX was also present
at Sabbatai’s conversion to Islam. After having become Muslim,
Sabbatai told the sultan and the muftX that he would encourage
Jews to accept Islamic faith. Galante mistakenly mentions VanT'

40
Efendi as the mufti.
Among modern Turkish historians, i.H.Uzunparsili describes,
the dispute between the Kacjiz^delis and the SufTs in a chapter of
"Sofiyye Ricali ve Kadizadeliler”. Here, he first relates the

/
trends of mysticism in the Ottoman Empire starting from mid
fifteenth century and continuing into the seventeenth century.
He then mentions the acts of the Kadizadelis against the HalvetT,
KadirT and MevlevI dervishes. The author gives a systematic
account of the movement tracing its origins to Birgivl Mefyned
Efendi. He mainly draws on the history of Na'Ima.

In general,
41
Uzuncarsili has a negative approach to the Kadizadelis.
39
M. A. Ubicini, Letters on Turkey. trans.Lady Easthope,
2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1856). ..
40
Abraham Galante, Histoire des Juifs d'Anatolie.
vol.I, Les Juifs d*Izmir(Smvrne) (Istanbul, 1937), 250-252.
41
Uzunparsili, Osmanli Tarihi. 3, pt.1:343-367.
18
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
{ Abdulbaki Golpmarli is another Turkish scholar whose
i
1 extensive studies on the history of Suflsm and the MevlevT order
| in particular provides him with many chances to comment on the
| Kadizadeli movement. He sees Birgivl as the intellectual

i
; predecessor of the
Kadizadelis. Besides some of the works
i * '
j produced by the Sufis, the author primarily refers to Na'Ima and
1 Rasid. The author disapproves of the aggressive acts by the

I 42
3 Kadizadelis which began during Ustuvani Efendi’s time.
Halil inalcik refers to the Kadizadelis in his work /
The Ottoman Empire.1300-1600 in a chapter called "The Triumph of
Fanaticism." inalcik traces the origin of the Kadizadelis to
Mehmed of Birgi whom he describes as a Muslim puritan. He then
briefly describes the actions of KladTzade and his followers. He
sees the subject of "innovations" as the essence of the dispute
between the Kadizadelis and the Sufis. inalcik considers the
Kadizadelis as "demagogues" who engaged in "religious

43
fanaticism." !
In the first volume of his work, Stanford Shaw treats the
Kadizadelis under the title of "The Kadizadeler." The authcr
describes this group as "leading members of the 'ulema’," a
questionable identification as we shall see, whose aim was to
42
Abdulbaki Golpmarli, MevlanS’dan Sonra Mevlevilik. 2d
ed. (Istanbul, inkilap ve Aka, 1983), 158-168.
43
Halil inalcik, The Ottoman Empire:the Classical Age.
1300-1600. trans. N.Itzkowitz and C.Imber (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1973).
19
a
introduce a narrow-minded orthodoxy in the Ottoman Empire. Shaw
alleges that they disguised their true purpose under the veil of
44
a strict adherence to the Qur’an and the hadis.
Weshould also mention an article by Ahmet Yasar Ocak on

45 - •
the Kadizadelis. The author sees the movement as an attempt at
Puritanism in religion. He notes that such movements had arisen
in Islamic history during periods of political and social crisis.
In those times, a religious group would emerge and seek solutions
to these problems. The formula they offered would be a return to '
the practices during the Prophet’s time, i.e., a strict
observance of the Kur’an and sunnet and abstinence from bid’ats.
! A.Y.Ocak traces the origins of the Kadizadelis to Ibn Teymiye and
] to Birgivl. He mentions later examples of such movements as the

I " _
| Vahhabis and the trend of thought represented 'by Cemaleddin
AfganT (d. 1897) and Muhammed 'Abduh (d. 1905). Next comes a
I discussion
The
of the movement starting with Birgivl Mehmed
principal sources of Ocak! are Ottoman histories such as: the

Efendi.
works of Silahdar, Na’Ima and Katib Celebi. The author also
gives references to some of the basic works written by the
Kadizadelis and the Sufis. According to A.Y.Ocak, who follows
44
Stanford J.Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and
Modern Turkey, vol.1, Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline
of the Ottoman Empire.1280-1808 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1976), 206-207.
45
A.Y.Ocak, "XVII. Yuzyilda Osmanli tmparatorlugun’da
Dinde Tasfiye(Puritanizm) Te§ebbuslerine Bir Baki§: ’Kadizadeliler
Hareketi,’" Turk Kultiiru Arastinnalan. 1-2 (1983): 208-226.
20
Na'Ima's interpretation, the aim of the Kadizadelis was to obtain
fame and high positions. They simply used the principle of el-
emr bi'l ma'ruf ve'l nehv 'ani'1 - m u n k e r as a pretext for making
this aim legitimate.
There are also two unpublished Ph.D.dissertations on the
Kadizadelis. The first one, by Hehmet iim$ek, points out that
neo-Hanbell ideas penetrated the Ottoman lands after the conquest
of Egypt. The Kadizadelis were greatly influenced by these
ideas starting with Birgivl who was their intellectual mentor. '
He then discusses the religious duty el-emr bi'l ma'ruf ve'l-
nehv'ani’1-munker according to which the "traditionalist 'ulema' "
opposed the bid'ats. This discussion is followed by chapters on
the disputes between the Sufis and the 'ulema* as described by
Katib Celebi in Mlzanu'l-Hak. Besides Ottoman chronicles such as
Na'Tma’s work and western sources, the author refers to some
basic works written by the Kadizadelis

• •
and the Sufis.
•
In
general, $im$ek views the

Kadizadeli movement as a sincere
46
attempt at preventing Ottoman decline.
Amore recent work on the Kadizadelis is a Ph.D.thesis by

47
Necati Ozturk. In his work, the author sees the purpose of the
Kadizadeli movement as the application of the religious duty el-
emr bi'l ma'ruf ve'l nehv *ani'1-munker. In this way, the
46
M.Simsek, "Les Controverses sur la Bid'a en Turquie
(de Selim I a Mehmed IV 1512-1656)” (Ph.D.diss., Sorbonne, 1977).
47
Necati Ozturk, "Islamic Orthodoxy Among the Ottomans in
the Seventeenth Century with Special Reference to the Qadl-Zade
Movement" (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1981).
21
KadTzadelis aimed to correct the social and moral vices which led
the empire to decline. Oztiirk treats the movement in three
phases: In the first phase, he describes the life and works of
Birgivl, Kadizade and 'AbdiilmecTd SivasT. In the second phase,
he discusses the movement during .the time of UstuvanT and
'Abdiiiahad .\:urT. In the third phase, he mentions VanT Efendi and
his resumption of the dispute. The author also mentions the .
influences of the KSdTzadeli movement. After a treatment of the
controversial issues based on Katib Celebi’s account, he deals
with the influence of the ehlu’l-hadTs on the Kadizadelis. In
general, uzturfc’s thesis is the first work in the field which
gives an extensive discussion of the movement. Besides such-
Ottoman chroniclers as Na'Tma, Katib Celebi, PecevT, Silahdar and
Rasid and western sources, the author mainly draws on the works
of the KadTzadelis and the Sufis themselves.
In this thesis, I have used some principal sources which

t _
have hitherto not been cited with reference to the Kadizadelis.
These are the chronicles of Veclhl Hasan Efendi, Na'Ima’s main
source, and 'AbdT Pasa and, more importantly, two works by
'AbdiilmecTd Sivasl Efendi where he treats some of the
controversial issues.(Xesavihu* 1-Miiluk. Suleymaniye L., MS.
Laleli 1613 m; Leta’ifu’l-Ezhar ve Leza*izu’1-Esmar. Suleymaniye
L., MS. Mihrisah Sultan 255).
22
Recently, an article by Madeline Zilfi has been published on
the Kadizadelis.
48 -
Zilfi examines the KagTzadeli movement in jI
three "waves" or "episodes" tracing their origin to Birgivl
Mehmed Efendi. In the article one finds a brief account of the
biographies and careers of the Kadizadeli and Sufi leaders. In
addition to some relevant Ottoman chronicles by Na'Ima, Katib
Celebi, Silahdar and Rasid, the author his consulted western
sources and a number of risales written by the leaders of both
sides. According to Zilfi, the main reason for the final defeat
/
of the Kadizadelis was their insistence on applying the principle
49
of el-ear bi’l ma'ruf or "enjoining of right" by force.
Zilfi’s article makes it clear that the puritan mosque preachers-
(the KadTzadelis) came into conflict both with the Sufis and with
50
the higher 'ulema* who represented the religious institution.
As we examine the movement more closely in the following
chapters, it will become clear that not infrequently, the Ottoman
'ulema* sided with the Sufis against the Kadizadelis. This was
true particularly when the movement became a threat to the state
and the social order. My examination of the movement will
primarily focus on the tensions between the §ufTs and the
KadTzadelis.
48
Madeline C.Zilfi, "The Kadizadelis: Discordant
Revivalism in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul," Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 45, nc. 4 (October 1986): 251-269.
49
Ibid., 256.
50
Ibid., 265-267.
23
In this thesis,, I will primarily refer to the relevant
Ottoman chronicles, books by western travelers and historians «nd
the works of contemporary scholars. However, the risales written
by the Kadizadelis and the Sufis who actually took part in the
dispute will constitute the essential part of our sources.
Hopefully, they will provide an insight into our understanding of

the movement.
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
PART I
THE SETTING OF THE MOVEMENT
CHAPTER I
A BRIEF SURVEY OF THE OTTOMAN CRISIS
IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
25
The Signs of Decline in the Ottoman Empire
Let us begin with a brief analysis of the social, political
and economic conditions in the Ottoman Empire essential to our
understanding of the Kadizadeli -movement. In sum, the
seventeenth century which has been regarded as a time of general
crisis for Europe, was as critical a time for the Ottoman

51
Empire. But already, sometime between the years 1550-1590,
certain Ottomans were troubled by the first signs of the drastic
changes which
were to affect the whole empire throughout the
52
following century.
Recent demographic analysis lends credence to their unease.

/
A number of scholars have investigated the relationship between
population pressure and the disruption of social order in
Anatolia which set in during the second half of the sixteenth

I
century. Michael Cook studied the Ottoman fiscal surveys in the
51
For the European crisis, see Geoffrey Parker and
Lesley M.Smith eds..The General Crisis of the Seventeenth
Century (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985).
52
For the changes in the Ottoman Empire after the year
1550 see, for example, Bernard Lewis, "The Decline of the Ottoman
Empire," chap. in The Emergence of Modern Turkey. 2d ed. (London:
Oxford University Press, 1968), 21-39; Halil Inalcik, "The Heyday
and Decline of the Ottoman Empire,"in The Cambridge History of
Islam, ed. P.M.Holt, Ann K.S.Lambton and Bernard Lewis
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), vol.l, The
Central Islamic Lands from Pre-Islamic Times to the First World
war, 324-353; Mustafa Akdag, Celali Isvanlan (1550-1603). Ankara
Universitesi DTCF Yayinlarx, no. 144 (Ankara: Ankara flniversitesi
Basimevi, 1963)'; Norman Itzkowitz, Ottoman Empire and Islamic
Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), 87-100.
26
period c. 1450-1575 for three selected regions of rural
53
Anatolia. His research demonstrates that both the size of the
population and the extent of arable land increased, but
"population growth was more rapid than the extension of

54
cultivation." There was a "dramatic increase" in the
proportion of unmarried adult males which, according to Cook, was
linked to the delay in marriage mainly due to the "scarcity cf
resources" and the custom of bride price. "If this increase can
be taken at all seriously, it provides an elegant confirmation of

55
the hypothesis." (He cautiously adds that an unrecorded change
in fiscal practice might be at work here}.
The surplus population in the village had to be somehow
absorbed by the society. Peasants who had to leave their land
would often join the students whose revolts took the form of
rural banditry; or they would join the retainers of provincial
administrators who exacted taxes from the people in the
countryside. There were also other ways open to dispossessed
peasants, but, according to Cook, the above-mentioned two were

56
rather distinctive in the Ottoman case. His study indicates
that population pressure was one important factor

53
M.A.Cook, Population Pressure in Rural Anatolia:
1450-1600. London Oriental Series, vol.27 (London: Oxford
university Press, 1972); also see inalcik, "Military and Fiscal
Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1700," chap. in
Studies in Ottoman Social and Economic History (Louvain, 1980;
reprint, London: Variorum Reprints, 1985), 285-286
(page references are to reprint edition).
54
Cook, Population. 10.
55
Ibid., 26.
56
Ibid., 39-41.
27
-4
a
precipitating the breakdown of social order during the period i

57 ' .1
which he studied. !
Suraiya Faroqhi and Leila Erder examined the Ottoman tax
registers for the period 1550-1620 in order to investigate the
question of population pressure particularly after the CelalT

58
rebellions. In the two provinces they .studied, they found a
general decline in population coupled with a downward trend in
land utilization approximately between 1580 and the first half of
the seventeenth century. The increase in the number of unmarried7
male population and the decline in the birth rate were similar to
the results of demographic studies for seventeenth-century

Europe. “
The results of the study by Faroqhi and Erder indicate that
after the disruption set in approximately between 1550-1590, a

t
decline in population occured due to such reasons as death and
exodus from a region or the growth of large landholdings
(ciftlik) which absorbed some land of the villages drawing off

59
the peasants.
| Modern scholars of Ottoman history generally agree on the
1 nature of the crisis and even on its causes. It is held, for
example, that the influx of cheap American silver into the

o I
Ibid., 43-44.
58
Suraiya Faroqhi and Leila Erder, "Population Rise and
Fall in Anatolia:1550-1620," chap. in Peasants. Dervishes and
Traders in the Ottoman Empire (London, 1979; reprint, London:
Variorum Reprints, 322-345 (page references are to reprint
edition).
59 Ibid., 337-338.
28
Ottoman markets contributed to the sharp price increase.
Furthermore, Barkan* has suggested that there may have been other
factors which led to inflation in the Ottoman Empire. These
were, population increase which led to increasing internal
demand, the pressure of the growing European economies and their
hunger for raw materials from various parts of the earth
including the Ottoman dominions as well as the devaluation of the

60
akce. the Ottoman currency. The debasement of the monetary
unit, however, caused a decrease in state revenues and in the
fixed revenues of timar holders. Yet, faced with the growing/
military expenses andbudgetary deficits, the Ottomans had ta
increase their revenues. Among the new fiscal measures was the
increasingly frequent imposition of taxes such as the 'avani-i

61
divanTye. the tekalTf and the imdadive. Methods of tax
collection also changed. iltizam (tax-farming) replaced the
timar system. The purpose of this change was to assure regular
payments of cash by multezims (tax-farmers) to the state
treasury. In order to preventthe abuses by the multezTms. the
60
O.L.Barkan, "Price Revolution of the Sixteenth Century:
A Turning Point in the Economic History of the Near East,"
International Journal of Middle East Studies 6 (January 1975):
8-15. Although inalcik agrees with Barkan on the factors leading
to inflation in the Ottoman Empire, he states that "Barkan makes
no attempt to explain the relationship between the sudden
increase of Western silver coins in the market and the
devaluations introduced by the state." See inalcik, "Impact of
the Annales School on Ottoman'Studies and New Findings," chap.
in Studies in Ottoman Social and Economic History (Binghampton,
X.Y., 1978); reprint, London: Variorum Reprints, 1985). See
section entitled "II.Ottoman Price Revolution: A Result of Silver
Influx or Population Pressure?", 93-96.
61
’Avlnz-i dlvanive. tekalTf and imdadive were new
taxes levied temporarily on an emergency basis. See inalcik,
"Military," 313-327.
29
bevs and the pasas. the government began to apply the
system on a large scale in the seventeenth century by which each
tax-paying community paid taxes directly to the state in lump-

62
sums.
Military problems were another aspect of Ottoman decline.
Ever since it originated as a principality on the marches,
military expansion had been the dynamic force behind the growth
of the Ottoman state. Indeed, "conquest had provided wealth in
the form of new lands for timar grants and for agriculture, more
positions for those in bureaucratic and religious careers,
additional manpower for the devshirme. and booty of infinite

63
variety." Already by the end of Suleyman the Magnificent’s
period, it became apparent that the Ottoman state was unable to
pass beyond its limits of expansion, namely, Vienna in the west
and Tabriz in the east. The long and unfruitful wars such as the
t
ones against Persia (1578-1590) and Austria (1593-1606) 'brought
no swift success.
■Military failures led to severe consequences in the
religious institution. Due to the diminishing number of jobs,
the desperate suhtes. students in religious schools, often joined

64
the rebellious groups in cities and the countryside. Some
Ottoman ’ulema* developed a distaste towards novelties which is
62
Ibid., 327-334.
63
Itzkowitz, Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition. 95.
64
Mustafa Akdag, "Turkiye Tarihinde ictimai Buhranlar
Serisinden: Medreseli isyanlari," iktisat Fakultesi Mecmuasi. 11
(1950): 361-387.
30
perhaps best detected in the case of the Kadizadelis. As we
shall see when we discuss the movement in more detail, they would
65
oppose using forks, knives and spoons and wearing trousers.
It was clear to the Ottomans that European armies were far
more advanced than theirs in training, techniques and equipment.
The traditional weapons of the sinahT cavalry were no longer
efficient. Now, the Ottomans had to rely on a professional
standing army with the latest weapons (firearms and artillery).
The Ottoman government had a twofold solution to this problem:'
expansion of the janissary corps and recruitment of landless
peasants from the re *5v5 as mercenaries. But the solutions had
dire political, social and financial consequences only too
apparent by the time of the JâcJTzadeli movement. For, as a
result of the first measure, the Ottoman government had to bear a
higher fiscal burden. Moreover, high officials in the janissary
corps (the agas) began to exert a much greater influence in the

66
palace. This had come about during the CelalT uprisings (1595-
1607), when the government employed the janissaries in order to
suppress these rebels. Thereafter, the janissaries had gradually
become a powerful locai group in cities and towns as well as in
I the palace.
67
I 65
Uzuncarsili, Osmanli Tarihi. 3, pt. 1:365-366.
66
W.J.Parry, "The Period of Murad IV, 1617-1648," in
A History of the Ottoman Empire to 1730. ed. M.A.Cook (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1976), 139.
67
inalcik, "Military," 290-291.
31
The uprisings themselves were associated with the
government’s second solution for the military problem: the

68
recruitment of the landless, vagrant peasants in Anatolia.
These levends, organized into military units (the sekbSn
bolilkleri with a chief known as the bolukbasi) often served in
the retinues of provincial governors during campaigns. These
governors would then levy extraordinary taxes {salgun) on the
re *av5 in order to maintain their retinues. Once a campaign was
over, the sekbans themselves, acting as independent units under
the leadership of their bolukbasi. would often exact taxes,
monetary tributes, animals and food supplies from towns and-
villages by force.
Aggravating the social unrest and increasing the political
tensions both in the provinces and at court was the emergent
rivalry between the sekbans of re *ava origin and the palace-
trained janissaries. For while the state might use the
janissaries to deal with rebellious sekbans. the latter
themselves might be eager to penetrate the prestigeful palace

69
military system. The climax came with the revolt of Abaza
Mehmed Pasa, the governor of Erzurum, who from 1623-1628
withstood the janissaries with his sekbans and shook the court.
Similar revolts (e.g. by Varvar 'All Pasa in 1647, by the grand
vezir ibslr Mustafa Pasa in 1654-1655 and by Abaza Hasan Pasa in

*7°
1658) were coterminous with the Kadizadeli movement.
68
Ibid., 292. .
69
Ibid., 297-298.
70
Parry, "The Period of Murad IV, 1617-1648," 142-143.
32
i
| During these same years, the court itself was as ouch a
part of the general crisis as the risings in the provinces and
.1 the riots in Istanbul. The state was run by a constantly

I
: changing coalition of palace officials (especially the grand
vezirs). religious officials (particularly the sevhulislams) and
military officials (notably the ianisaarr aga and ' the

71 , ,
sekbanbasi).
As for the sultans, Murad was eleven and Mehmed was seven
when they ascended the throne, while ibrahlm is popularly known/
as "the Mad.” Their mothers, the valide sultans, were frequently
involved in these coalitions. The rivalries and alliances
surrounding the sultans influenced state affairs and effected the
course of the $adlzadeli movement.

f X
I In Part II of this thesis, the political background of the
• seventeenth-century Ottoman crisis will figure prominently. Less

j
; evident, due to the nature of our sources, will be the social
t
j parameters of the crisis. We will learn much from biographies of
|
E each of the leaders discussed. It is difficult to generalize
<
t
i about individual followers of the movement, however. Among the
| chroniclers, Na'Tma describes these followers as jobless, idle
I and brawling people with very limited knowledge of Islam. But

I
when he names some of the individuals, while most are popular
j preachers, one turns out to be a teacher of the royal pages in

I 72
the palace, and another, the son a Sufi sevh. . Other names
71
Ibid., 137-138.
72
Na'Tma, Tarih. 5:54-55.
33
occur sporadically in the biographical sources. M.Zilfi, for
example, has identified two of the Kaglzadelis- Rose Mehmed (d.
1083/1672) and BosnevI 'Osman (d. 1074/1664) who preached,
respectively, in the Istanbul mosques of Bayezxd and Ayafofya at

73
the time of tfstuvanx Efendi’s leadership of the movement.
From the Ottoman traveler Evliya’ Celebi we learn that
there were followers of KadTzade outside of Istanbul. Evliya’
9
3
4
1 Qelebi
Mustafa,
relates an anecdote about the activities of
a janissary from Tire, who was a KadTzadeli.

some 5acT
Since he7
J believed that painting was unlawful in Islam, he violently
| destroyed theminiatures of a Sahname with the purpose of
| applying the nehy-i munker (forbidding evil). I myself have

i
| examined a number of relevant muhimme defters and documents in
the Ali Emiri Tasnifi in the Basbakanlik Archives and pursued my
research at the Topkapi Palace Archives as well. Unfortunately,

I
I have not as yet turned up any data suggestive of the social
background of the lesser Kadlzadeli followers. It thus remains
difficult, for all Na'xma’s generalities, to define the
doctrinally cohesive KadTzadelis in terms of a socially cohesive
group. What most obviously unites them is their special view of
the seventeenth-century Ottoman crisis in terms of a decline in
pristine Islamic values and beliefs, and their special targeting
of the §ufis as the bearers of that decline.
73
Zilfi, "Revivalism,” 258.
74
See Evliya Chelebi in Bitlis. ed.R.Dankoff, to be
published by E.J.Brill.
34
A number of modern scholars describe the changes which took
place in the seventeenth-century Ottoman Empire as a
"transformation" rather them "decline." According to them, these

1 75
5 changes did not necessarily effect the empire negatively. As
4
1 for the Ottoman intellectuals and*statesmen of the seventeenth
century, they agreed upon the idea of decline, but they had
different perceptions of it and, naturally, different remedies
for the problems associated with it. In the following section, I
will discuss two principal reform attempts in the Ottoman Empire
by the serTeat-minded and the kanun-minded intellectuals.
75
For a discussion of these changing views on Ottoman
decline in recent scholarship, see the Introduction of the Ph.D.
thesis by Cemal Kafadar, "When Coins Turned into Drops of Dew and
Bankers Became Robbers of Shadows: The Boundaries of Ottoman
Economic Imagination at the End of the Sixteenth Century" (Ph.D.
diss., Institute of Islamic Studies, Me Gill University, 1986).
35
CHAPTER II
THE RESPONSES TO OTTOMAN DECLINE:
THE KADIZADELIS AS SERI‘AT-MINDED REFORMERS
36
Two Ideals -of Reform in the Ottoman Empire
The followers of KagTzade saw obedience to and application
of the seri’at as the one and only solution to Ottoman decline.
They can therefore be considered as the serT*at-minded reformers
as opposed to the Ottoman intellectuals of the post-Suleimanic
age for whom the idea of "fcanun" was the essential element of
reform.
Let us now examine the "reform ideal" of the late
sixteenth-century Ottoman historians. inalcik considers
Golibolulu Mustafa 'All (d. 1008/1599-1600) and SelanikT (d.
1009/1600?) as the
principal sources for later works in the
76 ’]■
seventeenth century. Another major treatise of Ottoman reform
in late sixteenth century was LiitfT Pasa’s (d. 971/1563)

77
Asafname. All of these sources emphasized the importance of
_ _ i
the kanun in' political rule and interpreted the Ottoman decline
as a result of its neglect. They can therefore be called the
kanun-minded reformers as
opposed to the serT'at-minded ones
78
during the post-Suleimanic age.
S 76
| Halil Inalcik, "Suleiman the Lawgiver and Ottoman
I Law," Archivum Ottomanicum 1 (1969): 37.
* 77
I LutfT Pasa’s office as grand vezxr was between
I 946/1539-948/1541. For an examination of his work, see Bernard
Lewis, "Ottoman Observers of Ottoman Decline," Islamic Studies 1
(March 19621:71-74.
78
For the use of the term kanun-conscious see Kafadar,
"Economic Imagination" and Cornell H.Fleischer, Bureaucrat and
Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: the Historian Mustafa*511
(1541-1600) (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).
Indeed, a number of significant historical works in the
seventeenth century bear the influence of these early kanun-
minded reformers. Among the most representative and influential
of these works, we can cite the anonymous Kitab-i Mustetab
written for‘Osman II (1027/1618-1031/1622), the risale of Koqi
Bey (fl. 2d quarter of the seventeenth century), the works of
Katib Qelebi (d. 1067/1657), Hezarfen Huseyin Efendi (fl. third
quarter of
the seventeenth century) and Defterdar Sari Mehmed
79
Pasa (d. 1129/1717).
Let us now briefly examine the connection between the kanun
Isecular regulations) and the serl*at (sacred law).
Theoretically, in Islam serl*at was the only recognized law which
regulated social and political life as a whole. Besides the
religious law, Islamic scholars accepted the legitimacy of the
'orf which was "the power of a ruler to decree independently from
the sari‘a those

regulations which seemed necessary for the
80
welfare of the Islamic community."
79
"Kitab-i Mustetab," in Osmanli Devlet Teskilatma Pair
Kavnaklar. ed.Yasar Yiicel (Ankara: Turk Tarih Eurumu Basimevi,
1988). Koqi Bey’s risale has been printed several times. See
for example, Eoci Bev gisalesi (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Ebuzziya,
1303/1885-86); likewise, Katib Qelebi’s work has also been
printed. Dusturu*1-’Amel IT Islahi*1-Halel (Istanbul,
1280/1863-64); for an examination of Hezarfen Huseyin Efendi’s
work TelhTsu*1-Bevan fl Kavanln-i 'al-i ‘nâSn_ see Robert
Anhegger, "Hezarfen Huseyin Efendi’nin Osmanli Devlet Teskilatma
Dair Mulahazalari," Turkivat Mecmuasi 10 (1953): 365-393; §ari
Mehmed Pasa.Ottoman Statecraft: The Book of Counsel for Vezirs
and Governors, trans. Walter Livingston Wright (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1935).
80
In general, such regulations were called kanun or
kavanin-i sultanTve or kavanln-i *orfIre. Inalcik, "Lawgiver,"
108.
38
Legislative activity had started before the "golden age" of
Suleyman the Magnificent (926/1520-974/1566). Mehmed II was the
first Ottoman sultan who issued law codes and various 'orfI laws.
This process of preparing secular laws and regulations continued

81
after the decline set in around the year 1580.
According to the kanun-minded reformists, the social,
'political and moral conditions in the Ottoman Empire could be
improved by compliance with the kanun and obedience to the
serl'at. Only then would justice ensue. What characterized the
serl'at-mlnded reformers was their ODposition to the svnthesis of

82
'orf and serl'at by the Ottomans. Instead, they emphasized the
serT'at as the one and only legitimate concern of Ottoman reform-
while insisting on the weeding out of innovations, not embodied
in the traditions about the Prophet and his companions, as its
major goal. We can therefore consider the pidlzadelis as the

*83
heirs of the selefTve or the ehlti' l-hadls. There are
Ibid., 109.
82
Kafadar, "Economic Imagination," 132-135.
83
In this thesis, the term "selefT" does not denote the
modernist Islamic reform movements of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. Rather, it delineates a specific and recurrent trend
in Islamic thought characterized by an emphasis on strict
adherence tc the Kur’an and the sunnet of the Prophet as well as
the valid traditions transmitted about the companions of the
Prophet and their followers, to the virtual exclusion of other
criteria for proper behavior for Muslims. Suleyman uiudag,
islam Dusuncesinin Y a m s i . 2d ed. (Istanbul: Dergah Tavinlart,
1980), 33-72.
39
references to the great selefr Ibn Teymiye (d. 728/1328) in the
works of SirgivI Mehmed Efendi, $aÎzade Helmed Efendi and
ifstuvanl Meljmed Efendi. Neither Birgivx, the intellectual mentor
of the Kadizadelis, nor the two leaders of the movement call
themselves ''solef!," however.
40
The selefT Background of the KadTzadelis
As important as the social and political milieu of the
KadTzadelis is their intellectual heritage. In this thesis, I
will trace back the origin of Ka^Tzadeli thought to the selefT
tradition. The "ehlu*1-ljadTa", "eshabu’1-hadTs" or the "selefls”
represented the traditional-conservative trend in Islam which
came to be characterized by its emphasis on preserving the purity
of Islam extant during the time of the Prophet and the Four '
Righteous Caliphs. Due to their strict adherence to the sunnet.
they objected to the practices which emerged after the Prophet’s'

84
time as innovations. Ibid*at).
/
The selefls strictly opposed the "e§habu’r-re’y" who used
’8 0
reason and individual opinion. They placed absolute reliance
on the traditions of the Prophet even though they may be

1 ;
transmitted by a single individual. (haber-i vahid). Hence, the
"ehlu’l-hadTs" collected and put forth many traditions allegedly
going back to the Prophet. Starting from the ninth century,
Muslims have considered these as essentially authentic although
not all of them may be so.
At various periods in Islamic intellectual history, selefT
tendencies culminated in polemical works and movements opposing
various other tendencies such as the rationalism of the "ehlu’1-
kiyas" and the Mu'tezilTs, all forms of associationism, popular

34
The Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2d ed., s.v. "Ahl al-
HadTth," by J.Schacht.
85 2
El t s.v. "Ashab al-Ra'y," by J.Schacht.
41
86
superstitions like the return of the mehdi , the miraculous j
quality of letters emphasized in Huruflsm, saint cults, etc. j
Intellectually, the Ka4Izadelis followed the path of such great j
selefls as Ibn ganbel (d. 241/855), Ibn Teymiye (d. 728/1328) and i
his student Ibn gayylmu’1-Cevzlye (d. 751/1350). We shall
demonstrate the selefT influence upon the Kaglzadelis by a
content analysis of the works written by 'their leaders.
Let us briefly compare the thinking and methodology of the
KadTzadelis with that of their intellectual predecessors by ,
taking up some of the principal themes which engaged them. A
systematic opposition to guflsm is often considered an- essential
aspect of Ibn ganbel’s thought. Laoust notes that Ibn Hanbel’s
position against Muhasibi (d. 243/857), Serl es-Sakatl .-(d.
256/870) and Zun-Nun el-Misrl (d. 245/859) did not mean a total
rejection of gufism. He then indicates Ibn.Hanbel’s reverence
for such great mystics as Bi$r b. el-Haris (d. 226/841). The
same holds true for Ibn Teymiye who admired some great Sufis as
Cuneyd el-Bagdadi (d. 298/910), Sehl et-Tusterl (d. 273/886), Ebu
2
86 £1 , s.v. "Al-MahdT," by W. Madelung. The mehdT was
the righteous one who would appear on earth before doomsday in
order to fortify the religion and to establish justice. BuârX
and Muslim have not compiled any traditions about the mehdT in
their Sahxhs■ There are, however, several mehdi traditions in
the canonical Sunni collections of hadTs such as the books of Ebu
Davud, Tirmizi, Ibn Mace, Nese’I, and the Musned of Ibn Hanbel.
Many well-known scholars such as GazalT (d. 505/1111), however,
preferred not to discuss this subject openly. They probably
feared that this could lead to a revolutionary movement in the
Islamic community. In my view, Ibn Teymiye’s rejection of the
mehdi could be for the same reason.
42
Talib el-MekkT (d. 386*/996), 'Abdulkerlm el-KuseyrT (d. 465/1072)
87
and 'Abdiilkadir el-Gllanl (d. 561/1166).
Both Ibn ganbel and Ibn Teymiye opposed what they
considered to be extremist and pantheistic forms of SufTsm. They
respected, however, some early mystics in Islam. BirgivT, the
intellectual mentor of the KadTzadelis, makes this distinction in
his Tarlkat-i Muhammedlve where he expresses his reverence for

88
some early Sufis. In one of his risales. VanT Efendi quotes
the names of some books written by §ufTs which he thinks Muslims

89
should abstain from reading. Chapter III will give a more
detailed examination of Van!’s views on this subject. He seems
to avoid condemning the §ufTs who are respected by Ibn Hanbel,

/
Ibn Teymiye and BirgivT.
A subject related to SufTsm is-saint cults. Ibn Teymiye
accepts the existence of evliva* (saints) who. will be present
until the day of resurrection. He also believes in the keramet
(miracles of saints) as mentioned in verse 18 in the gur’an. He
rejects saint cults, however, particularly the visitation of the
87
H. Lacust, "he Kanbalisse sous les Maslouks Bahrides,"
Revue des Etudes Islamioues 28 (1960): 35; G.Makdisi, "L’lslam
Hanbalisant," Revue des Etudes Islamioues 43 (1975): 57.
88
BirgivT Mehmed Efendi, Tarikat-i Muhammadiv-a Terctimesi
trans. Celal Yildirim, 3d ed. (Istanbul: Demir Kitabevi, 1981),
40-41.
89
VanT Mehmed Efendi, TasawufT Bid*atlerden Sakinmaya
Da’ir Risale. Suleymaniye L., MS. Haci Be?ir Aga 406/3, fo!.187a.
tombs of a prophet or a saint in order to seek spiritual aid. In
90
his view, this practice is heretical. The KadTzadelis, too,
follow Ibn Teymiye’s opinion. A more elaborate discussion of
this subject will be presented under the section of "Visiting
Tombs." .
Another theme of interest to us is Ibn Teymiye's view of
Islam as a religion on the one hand, and society and the state on
the other. In his thought, the purpose of belief is not only to
render service to God but to other believers as well. The
ultimate aim is to materialize mutual help and active
participation in social life which leads to communal solidarity.
Hence, Ibn Teymiye regards Islam both as a belief system and as a
social principle. This arises from the traditional notion of the
iimmet in which the unity of belief among the believers leads to
the equality of all Muslims, and therefore to their solidarity as
a social group. One sees this ideal of Islam in modern selefT

91
thought as well.
In Ibn Teymiye’s works such as Siyasetu’s-Ser’Ive. Minha-
cii’s-Sunnet. Hisbe and others the role of the state appears as
realizing justice, tevhld (unity), el-emr bi’l-ma’ruf ve’i-neny
;ani’1 munker and preparing the future of a society entirely

92
devoted to the service of God (*ibadet). One detects Ibn
90
Henri Laoust, "L’Influence d ’Ibn Taymiyya," in Islam;
Past Influence and Present Challenge, ed. A.T.Welch and P.Cachia
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1979), 21.
91
Henri Laoust, "Le Reformisme Orthodoxe des 'Salafiya’et
les Caracteres Generaux de son Orientation Actuelle." Revue
des Etudes Islamioues 6 (1932): 194.
92
Laoust, "Mamlouks," 37.
44
Teymiye*s influence upon KadTzade Mehmed Efendi*s work TacQ*r-
Resa’il ve Minhacu*l-Vesarii which is nothing other than an
expanded translation offcivasetu *s-Ser *Tve. Here, Kaijizade
observantly follows the footsteps of his mentor who wrote the
original text and emphasizes as a principal function of the state

I
the fulfillment of the religious duty of el-emr bi’l-matruf veJl-
nehv 'ani’1-munker.
Turning from doctrine to activism, let us now briefly
consider some clashes which occurred during the growth of
Hanbelism and in the period of Ibn Teymiye. One of the figures,
in the tenth century whose works inspired popular riots in
Baghdad was the traditionist and jurisconsult BarbaharT (d.

/
330/941). In his book Kitabu *s-Sunnet.BarbaharT defended the
din-i *atlk (old religion) during the time of the Prophet and the
pious ancestors. He suggested a restoration of the serT’at in

t
order to protect the family, the individuals and their
possessions. His aim was to establish justice and order ina

93
troubled society. In terms of purpose, one sees an obvious
similarity between BarbaharT, Ibn Teymiye and EadTzade. They all
aimed at correcting social, moral and political vices by
returning to what they considered to be the essentials of
religion. In his work, BarbaharT condemned all forms of' armed
rebellion. His views, however, led to several uprisings which
were primarily religious: disagreement on a point of $ur’ahic
exegesis, a public accusation of a preacher with giving lectures
93
Henri Laoust, "Le Hanbalisme sous le Califat de
Bagdad," Revue des Etudes Islamioues 27 (1959):- 82.
45
on the Kur’an which differed from the collation of Caliph ’Osman,
etc. In fact, these matters of dispute were not very different
in nature from the ones during the time of the KadTzadelis, as we
shall see.
Popular riots took place during Ibn Teymiye*s period as
well. In 707/1307, Ibn Teymiye came into conflict with two well-
known Sufis in Egypt: Seyh Ibn ’Aâ’ullah el-iskenderl (d.
709/1309), the head of the §aziliye order, and Seyh KerTmeddTn
el-*Amull (d. 710/1310), the head of the Daru’s-Sa'Tdu’s-Su'eda
in Cairo. At the end of SevvSl 707/March 1308, the §ufTs had a
demonstration in Cairo against Ibn Teymiye. As a result, he had
to appear before the judge in order to explain his views on the
doctrine of intercession by saints. Ibn Teymiye was eventually

94
jailed in the prison of the kadTs in Cairo.
This early selefT thinking came to be represented in the

t
nineteenth century by VahhabTsm and by such eminent figures as
CemaleddTn el-AfganT (d. 1897), Muhammed ’Abduh (d. 1905) and
Rasid Riza who were associated with Islamic reform. The modern
selefis attempted to combine the puritanic neo-HanbelTsm of Ibn
Teymiye and his student Ibn KayyTmii *1-Cevzxye with the pragmatic
absorption of European progress in the sciences and material

95
achievements. In fact, one can consider the KadTzadelis as yet
94
Laoust, "Mamlouks," 23-24.
95
For a more detailed treatment of the relationship
between Islamic modernism and Ibn Teymiye, see Henri Laoust,
Essai sur les Doctrines Sociales et Poli’tioues de Taki-d-Din
Ahmad b. Taimiya, Publications d ’Archeologie, de Philologie et
d’Histoire, vol.10 (Cairo: Imprimerie de I ’Institut Francais
d’Archeologie Orientale, 1939), 541-575.
46
another milestone in the line of selefT thought from Ibn £anbel
to modern Islamic reformers. The present chapter will give a
more thorough discussion of selefT thought as it manifested
itself in BirgivT Mehmed Efendi’s views concerning the cash vakf
controversy in the Ottoman Empire. A closer examination of
BirgivT may help us find the point of conjunction between
selefTve and the thinking of the KadTzadelis with respect to
method and themes of discussion.
96
Birgivi Mehmed Efendi
Birgivi was born in Balikesir in -the year 929/1523. His
father Pir 'All was a miiderris in this town. The young Mehmed
had a strong education and as a young boy, in addition to
.memorizing the Kur’an, he excelled in both the 'aklT (rational)
and the nakll (traditional) sciences. His father then sent him
to Istanbul to complete his higher education in the
Semanive Medrese. the most important higher learning institution

97
of the time. There, he became the student of AhTzade Mehmed '
Efendi (d. 989/1581) and Kadi'asker 'Abdurrahman Efendi (d.
1001/1591). Having passed his examination, Mehmed Efendi became a

muderris.
/
After his graduation from the Semanive Medrese. BirgivT was
_ 98
attached to Kadi'asker 'Abdurrahman Efendi as his mulazim.
96 ,
Some basic sources on Birgivl’s life are 'Aâ'T,
Hada'ik. 1:179-181; Emrullah Tuksel, "Mehmed Birgivi,"
Atatiirk dniversitesi Islami ilimler Fakultesi Dergisi 2 (1977):
175-185; Islam Ansiklopedisi. 1961 ed., s.v. "Birgivi Muâmmed b.
Pir All," by Kasim Kufrali; Katib Celebi, Balance. 128-131;
M.Sureyya, Sicil. 4:121; M.Tahir, OM, 1:253-256; Nihal Atsiz,
comp. , Istanbul Kutuphanelerine Gore Birgj 1-i Mehmet Efendi
Biblivografvasi. Suleymaniye Kutuphanesi Yayinlari, 1 (Istanbul:
Milli Egitim Basimevi, 1966); PepevI, Tarlh. 1:467; $emseddln
Sami, kaausu'1— 'Alam (Istanbul, I306/I88S—oS), 2:1284—12So.
97
Medaris-i Semanive: the eight medreses founded and
endowned by the order of Mehmed II around his mosque. See Katib
Celebi, Balance, 32..
98
Mulazim: an assistant functionary who serves as an
unpaid beginner in an official post. M.Z. Pakalm, Osmanli Tarih
Deyimleri ve Terimleri SozluSu (Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basimevi,
1953), 2:611.
48
Following this peri'od of specialization, he taught in some
medreses.
When he was appointed kassam- 1 'askerT in Edirne, he also
had the chance to attend the classes of 'Abdurrahman b. SeydT

99
'All (d. 983/1575) for a while.
At this time, in 'Ata’T ’s words, "the wind of God’s
spiritual assistance blew upon" Mehmed Efendi*s "vigilant heart

100
and showed the right way to his soul." He therefore entered '
the order of the BayramT serh 'Abdurrahman KaramanT (d.

101
973/1565). Mehmed Efendi then went to Edirne and returned the
inheritance shares which he had received during his office as
kassam to their owners. Not much later, following the advice of
his seyh, he departed from the path of mysticism and resumed
teaching. Uzuncarsili notes that BirgivT gave up his , endeavors
in the religious order because he was unable to understand the
riyazet (ascetic austerities) and the theory of vahdet-i
99
Kassam- i 'askerT: law official who fixes inheritance
shares concerning the military. Pakalm, Sozluk. 2:210. See
also Redhouse, 615. For 'Abdurrahman’s biography see M.Tahir,
0M, 1:401.
100
'Ata’T.
• * Hada’ik.
a w ’
179.
101
I have not been able to find information on
'Abdurrahman KaramanT *s biography in the sources. Since
realizing the theory of vahdet-i viicud was essential in the
entrance to the BayramT order, however, §eyh KaramanT must be in
favor of this theory. See IA.. 1944 ed., s.v. "BayramTye," by
A.Golpmarli.
102
vucud. His seyh. however, did not allow him to give up his
sermons and teaching altogether.
'Ata’ullah Efendi (d. 979/1571), the teacher of SelTm II
(974/1566-982/1574), appreciated Birgivi Mehmed Efendi’s
knowledge and virtue. With the advice of 'Abdurrahman KaramanT,
he appointed Birgivi as muderris in the medrese which he had
built in Birgi. There, Mehmed Efendi continued his sermons
advising people to obey the principle of el-
emr bi’l ma'ruf ve’l nehv'ani’1-munker. He kept this position
until his death, but also often visited Istanbul.
BirgivT engaged in disputes with Sevhulislam Ebussu'ud
Efendi on the subject of cash vakf and the payment of religious
functionaries in return for their services. We shall discuss the

103
cash vakf controversy in more detail below. In response to
BirgivT’s disagreement with him, Ebussu'ud Efendi admonished
3irgivl notto cause disorder among people, issuing .a fetva

104 _
against him. Bilalzade, who was one of the kadis of the time,
105
rejected BirgivT’s views as well. Later on, in the year
102
Uzuncarsili, Osmanli Tarifai. 3, pt. 1:354-355.
V'ahdet-i Vucud: the theory of monotheism or 'unity of the being’
as developed by Sev)j Ibn 'Arab! (d. 638/1240). See J.Spencer
Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1971), 58.
103
For a discussion of this subject, see Jon. E.
Mandaville, "Usurious Piety: the Cash Waqf Controversy in the
Cttoman Empire," International Journal of Middle East Studies 10
(1979): 289-308.
104
PecevI, TarTh. 1:467.
105 . °
IA, 1961 ed., s.v. "BirgivT Muhammed b. PTr'AlI," by
Kufrali.
50
979/1571 Birgivi wrote his work es-Sevfu’s-Sarim in which he
106
opposed the practice of endowing money.
During the last years of his life, Birgivi Mehmed Efendi
came to Istanbul in order to advise the grand vezTr Sokullu
Mehmed Pasa (d. 987/1579 , grand vezirate: 972/1565-987/1579) on
the correction of vices in society. Unfortunately, we do not
know exactly what these suggestions were. Birgivi passed away in
the year 981/1573.
His reputation as a righteous man is best illustrated by
'Ata’I ’s praise of him as the guide of ascetics and one of the
signs of God in fetva and piety. (erbab-i istifade ve eshab-
l zuhhadeve delFl. rah-i fetva ve takvada avet min avatullah

107
idi)• ,
In different branches of religious sciences, Birgivr
benefited from the knowledge of some great scholars. In the

i
field of ‘aka* id and kelam. Birgivi referred to some basic books.
These were tAka'id by NecmeddTn *0mer b. Muhassed es-Nesefi,
Serh-i-'Aka* id and Serh-i-Mekasid by Sa'deddln Mes'ud b. 'Omer
IQg
Birgivi,' "The Sharp Sword for the- InaHmiggjbilitv
of the Movable and Cash Waofs (al-savf al-sarim fT 1«<-?»» iawaz
waqf al-manoul wa11-darahim)." See Mandaville, "Cash Waqf," 305.
A manuscript copy of this work is in Suleymaniye L., MS. Esad
Efendi 1581, fols. 218b-249b.
107
'Ata’i, Hada* ik. -180.
108
et-Taftazani and Serh-i-Mevakif by SeyyTd Serif el-CurcanT.
As for fifchj he benefited from many HanefT scholars in this

109
field.
1AO
1VO
'Aka*id: a work by NecmeddTn 'Oaer b. Muhaaaed
en-Nesefl {d. 537/1142} of Samarkand on the fundamental articles
of faith; Sa'deddln Mes'ud b. 'Oaer et-Taftazanx (d. 791/1389):
a celebrated scholar who wrote on the subjects of grammar, logic,
rhetoric, theology, law and metaphysics. He wrote a commentary
on Nesefl’s 'Aka* id and on his own work Mekasid which is a
handbook of kelSm: Mevakif: a work by 'AdududdTn *Abdurrahman
b. Ahmed el-Icx (d. 756/1355) on kelam: Seyyxd SerTf 'AIT b.
Muhammed b. 'AIT el-Curcanl (d. 816/1413): a celebrated writer
on grammar, logic and kelam who wrote a famous commentary on
Mevakif.
109
Yuksel, "Mehmed Birgivi," 183.
52
110
BirgivT Mehmed Efendi*s Works
For centuries, BirgivT has remained a very popular author
and an influential thinker thanks primarily to two principal
works. These are his Risale-i BirgivT and TarTkat-i Muh»mmgAi-p-e.

• • 111
The first, also known as Vasivetname. is a book of catechism.
In this work, BirgivT discusses such subjects as the attributes
of God, the essentials of faith, angels and the prophets, Prophet
Muhammed and the Four Caliphs, a description of the hereafter,

/
the enumeration of religious duties, etc. A number of
commentaries have been written on this work. The primary ones
are the books of Konyali $eyh 'AIT Efendi, isma'Tl Efendi { the
muftT of Osmanpazan who wrote a serh on §eyh 'AIT Efendi’s

~ 112
commentary) and by Kadlzade Ahmed Efendi. Tarlkat-
S
i Muhammediye. on the other hand, is organized in three babs and
several subsections. In the beginning of his book, the author
indicates the necessity for following the Kur’an and the siinnet.
i
Some major topics which he deals with in his book are
innovations, studying the different kinds of sciences, takva
(piety), kuf r (infidelity), affections associated with different
110
For a list of BirgivT’s works in the libraries of
Istanbul, see Atsiz, comp., Biblivografva.
111
BirgivT, Risale-i BirgivT. Sulcyaar.iys L., MS. Haci
Besir A£a 397/1.
112
SeyJj 'All Sadrl el-l£onevT, Serh-i BirgivT
li’l-KonevT. Suleymaniye L., MS. Mihrisah Sultan 243; isma'Tl
NiyazT, Serh-i NivazT 'ala Serh-i-BirgivT li’l-KonevT.
Suleymaniye L., MS. Diigtimlu Baba 134; $a4izade Ahmed b. Muhammed
Emin, Cevhere-i Behive-i Ahmedive fT Serhi*1-Vasiveti*1-
Muhammedive (Istauibul, 1218/1803-4).
53
organs of the body, such as the heart, the tongue, the ear, the
hand, etc. In TarTkat-i Mnhammedive. BirgivT frequently quotes
Kur’anic verses and traditions of the Prophet in order to support

his views.
The Controversy on Cash Vakf
An important contention took place between Birgivr Mefemed
Efendi and Ebussu'ud Efendi in the sixteenth century concerning
the cash vakf. My purpose here is to underline the differences
between the methods of the two discussants and to identify the
W2 .ys which ivi*s whichiiio w&s sssccistvd
selefIve.
In general, a vakf is the endowment of property for '
charitable purposes. Bydefinition, it is permanent and
irrevokable. Cash vakf is the endowment of money in order to pay
the salaries of teachers and preachers by the income earned from
it. One important problem related to cash vakf is the difficulty
in establishing a monetary fund permanently. Usury .being
forbidden in Islamic law, men of religion turned to other

113
solutions.
The practice of cash vakf seems to have begun in the

114
Ottoman Empire during the first half of the fifteenth century.
The debate on this subject started in the sixteenth century. It
was Civizade Mehmed Efendi who opposed cash vakf for the first
time in the Ottoman Empire during his office as kadi *asker of
113
Imam Zufer (d. 138/755), one of Ebu Hanffe’s students
and companions, permitted cash vakf provided that the vakf money
is invested through a business partnership known as mudSrebe and
the income from the vakf is used for the well-being of the '
people. Mandaville, "Cash Waqf," 294-295.
114
Ibid., 290.
55
115
Kumeli between the years 952/1545-954/1547. Ebussu'ud Efendi
(d. 982/1574), in turn, defended cash vakf in a risale in Arabic.

116
His main arguments were as follows:
a- The two HanefT scholars Muljammed e$-$eybanl (d. 189/805) and
Ebu Yusuf (d. 182/798) accept theendowment of movables on the
basis of te'amul (customary usage). b- Cash is a kind of
movable. Therefore, te*50161 is valid for cash as well. c-
Since cash vakf is legal, it has an irrevocable nature like other
categories of vakf. Qivizade responded to Ebussu'ud by rejecting
his arguments which supported the cash vakf. He objected to
Zufer as a weak source of reference. He rejected the principle
of te'amul as well saying that

there is "no guide or
117
clarification for its permissibility". Mandaville regards
Civizade as a conservative jurist since he insisted on a well-
grounded usage in legal texts in establishing the legitimacy of
practices.
BirgivT Mehmed Efendi criticized and rejected Ebussu'ud’s
pro-cash vakf arguments in a work entitled Zealous Answers to the
Roots of Divisive Doubts (al-a.iwibat al-hasiaa li 'uruo al-shib-
115
Qivizade’s objection to cash vakf was not the reason
for his dismissal from the office of «»vhii1 igl»m. which he held
between the years 945/1539-948/1541. For his life, see tA, 1945
ed., s.v. "Civizade Muhiddin §eyh Mehmed Efendi," by M. Cavid
Baysun.
116
Mandaville, "Cash Waqf," 298-300. This untitled
risale is in Suleymaniye L., MS. Dugumlu Baba 449/12.
117
Mandaville, "Cash Waqf," 300-301. Qivizade’s risale
is in Suleymaniye L., MS. Asir Efendi 459.
118
hat al-oasima).w In this work, Birgivl first opposed the
transfer of vakf property. Commercial transactions such as
mudarebe and mu’amele violate this condition. Secondly, he
disregarded Zufer’s arguments in favor of the cash vakf as weak.
Thirdly, Birgivl
mentioned the lack of evidence in legal books
119
for the irrevocability of cash vakf.
Mandaville also states that the pidlzadeli episode in
seventeenth-century Ottoman Empire enlivened the disputes on cash
vakf. In my research on the primary sources, however, I have not '
come across any mention of that particular controversy by the
Kadizadelis.
Perhaps the debates on cash vakf indicate a particular
outlook of the Ottoman ’ulema’ nourished by an increasing effort

120
to fortify SunnTsm and the serT’at. Indeed, the beginning of
the sixteenth century witnessed such religious conservatism which
later became marked by the measures taken by the state in !1537.
Accordingly, anybody who regarded the Prophet’s words with
suspicion would be considered a heretic and executed. A mosque
118 Suleymaniye L., MS. Esad Efendi 615. For a summary

of Birgivl’s arguments, see Mandaville, "Cash Waqf," 304-305.
119 Mandaville notes that Birgivl wrote five more books

on cash vakf. The best-known among them is es-Sevfu ’s- Sanm.
See Mandaville, "Cash Waqf," 305.
120
inalcik, Ottoman Empire, chap. XVIII passim.
According to Inalcik, among other factors, the clashes with
Safavid Iran may have contributed to an increased Sunni
consciousness in the sixteenth-century Ottoman Empire.
57
would be built in .every village and people would be obliged tc
121
join the Friday prayer in congregation. In such a;
conservative and puritan environment, a group of "narrow-minded''
'ulema* flourished who were teachers and preachers in the
mosques. Their selefT viewpoint' became apparent in their strict
adherence to the Kur’an and the siinnet as well as their rejection
of every innovation regardless of any consideration for popular
well-being. This was primarily the outlook of the two prominent
figures involved in the cash vakf controversy: Qivizade and /
Birgivi. Let us now briefly re-examine the main arguments of the
different sides in the cash vakf controversy.
As we see from the above discussion, Ebussu'ud accepts the
practice of pash vakf on the basis of te1amul (a customary

122
practice) and istihsan (well-being of the people). Civizade,
by way of contrast, looks for a strong authority among the
earliest legists in order to support his views. He refuses to
accept cash as a kind of movable since there is no explicit
evidence on this subject established by a reliable jurist.
121
Huseyin G.Yurdaydm, "Dusunce ve Bilim Tarihi (1300-
1600)," in Turkiye Tarihi. ed. Sina Aksin (Istanbul: Cem
Yayinevi, 1988), vol.2, Osmanli Devleti: 1300-1600. by Metin
Kunt, Huseyin G. Yurdaydm, and Ayla Sdekan. See section called
"Sunni Anlayx$i Giiglendirme Catalan," 162-164.
122
A similar argument was raised by Ebussu'ud’s
contemporary, the Halvetl §eyh Ball Efendi (d. 959/1552) who
appealed directly to the suitAn Suleyman the Magnificent in a
letter where he defended the cash vakf. Ball Efendi*s main
argument was that certain rules of the seri'at could be changed
in time so as to meet the exigencies in society. See Mandaville,
"Cash Waqf," 301-302. B31I Efendi*s liberal view with respect
to legal practices and his concern for the public good is similar
to Ebussu'ud Efendi*s opinion on cash vakf.
58
In his opposition to Ebussu'ud’s defense of cash vakf.
Birgivl, too, follows Civizade’s view but expands on it. Like
Civizade, Birgivi discards pro-cash vakf arguments in the absence
of a strong piece of evidence. Since Zufer’s statement is weak,
it cannot prove the validity ' of cash vakf. In their
argumentation, both CivizSde and Birgivl appear as followers of
the seiefl tradition since they look for a preceding well-
established legal opinion in order to support their views.
Birgivl rejects Ottoman innovations even if they may be justified
by some as pertaining to public good. This attitude, as we shall
see, also represents the selefT viewpoint of the pidlzadelis.
Besides cash vakf. Birgivi also opposes the payment of religious
functionaries in return for certain services such as the recitation of

123
the Kur’an. According to him, performance of an act which1pertains
to the hereafter [ e.g., the ritual worship tsalat). fasting, the
recitation of the Kur’an, etc.] in order to gain a worldly benefaction
will not produce merit in God’s sight. In his view, such a practice
did not exist during the time of the Prophet; therefore it is a
bid'at. BirgivT’s strict adherence o the Kur’an and traditions of the
Prophet on this subject justifies our qualification of him as a
selefT.
123
BirgivT has written risales on this subject. See,
for example.Ucret ile Kur’an Okutmal; Ca’iz Olmadigma Da’ir
Risale. Suleymaniye L., MS. Haci Be$ir Aga 672.
59
PART II
THE MOVEMENT IN THREE STAGES
CHAPTER I.II
THE KADIZADELI MOVEMENT: THE FIRST STAGE
KADIZADE MEHMED EFENDI vs . 'ABDULMECID

i SIVASI EFENDi
(ca. 1043/I633-1049/1639)
60
The Origins and Nature of the Movement:
Two Approaches
Seven.teenth-cen.turr Ottoman society was shaken by the
Kadizadeli movement which originated in the form of contentions
between two prominent figures of the time: Kaqtlzade Mehmed
Efendi (d. 1045/1635) and 'AbdulmecTd’ SivasT Efendi (d.
1049/1639). Ottoman historians such as Katib Celebi, Behcetr
Ibrahim Efendi and Na'Ima describe the movement as the product of
ancient disputes between two opposite parties: Sufis (erbab-
l tarik) vs. the orthodox rulema* 1‘ulema*-i zahir). Such
controversies existed since the period of the Four Righteous
Caliphs, says Na'Tma, in which the two factions almost reached
the point of warfare since they both adamantly adhered to their
claims. At every epoch, there were people who instigated ,old
quarrels under the guise of applying the religious duty of el-emr
bi *l-ma‘ruf ve*1-nehrcaai11-munker. According

Na'Tma, (the to
(
real purpose of such people was to become renowned, and so was
124
the aim of Siv3sT and KadTzade.
Katib Celebi, another Ottoman intellectual who has been
XadTzade’s student, shares the same opinion. He presents
KadTzade and SivasI in complete opposition to one another as the
leading representatives of the two conflicting currents which
were nurtured on
two different deeply-rooted traditions in
125
Islamic civilization.
124
N'a'Ima, Tarlh. 6:218.
125 9
Katib £elebi, Balance. 132-134.
61
He makes note of the perpetual state of dispute between
these two renowned serhs.

u In their contentions, each side drew
supporters to himself. Some reasonable sevhs who kept away from :
such disputes said:
This is a profitless quarr.el, born of fanaticism.

We are all members of the community of
Muhammad, brothers in faith. We have no warrant
1 from SivasT, no diploma from QadTzade. They are
I simply a couple of reverend sheykhs who have won
] fame by opposing one another; their fame has even
• reached the ear of the Sultan. Thus have they
] secured their own advantage and baked in the
I sunshine of the world. Why should we be so
5 foolish as to fight their battles for them? We '
] shall get no joy of it. 126
-i
j The "foolish people," according to Katib Celebi, howex-er,
were torn into two factions and both clung to their own beliefs.'
The sultan had to take the necessary measures lest the contention
turn into a:i open battle. Katib Celebi finally stresses the duty
of the sultan to punish such "fanatics." In the past, bigotry
caused much disorder. The ruler therefore should not allow the
HalvetTs or the Kadizadelis to win over one another.
An important question is why the Kaglzadelis took action

*127
against the Halvet! order in particular. The primary reason
for this hostility seems to be that during the time of the
KadTzSdelis, the Halvetl order with its numerous branches already

I
[ belonged to the Ottoman establishment and was held in favor by
r
i
| cne government.
t
126
Ibid., 133.
127 2
127 On the HalvetT order see, for example, El, s.v.
"Khalwatiyya," by F. de Jong; H.J. Kissling, "Aus der Geschichte des
Chalwetijje Ordens," Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen
i Gesellschaft 102 (1953): 233-289; Trimingham, Sufi Orders. 74-78
I passim.
62
This becomes clear when one examines the rivalry between the
Kadlzadelis and the Halvet! Sufi sevhs for positions of
preaching. According to Zilfi’s research,
Between 1621 and 1685, the Kadizadeli era, some

forty-eight appointments .were made to the Friday
vaiz posts at the imperial mosques of Ayasofya,
Sultan Ahmed, Suleymaniye, Beyazid, and Fatih. If
the appointments reflected something of the views
of the Seyhulislams and sultans (or the sultan's
chief deputies, the Grand Vezirs), Sufi shaikhs
were favorite choices for the five grandest mosques
in the city. Of the forty-eight appointments, at
least nineteen were of Halvetis, including Sivasi
(d. 1639), Evliyazade Mustafa (d. 1647), Abdulahad /
N’uri (d. 1651), and itmmi Sinanzade Hasan (d.
1677)...It hardly seems coincidental that the
principal victim of Kadizadeli wrath over the
decades was this most "public" of orders, the
Halveti, and its lodges.128
Among other factors which aroused the hostility of the
Kadlzadelis towards the Halvetis along with other orders were
certain Sufi rituals practised by them such as zikr-i cehrT
(praising God’s name aloud) and performance of the devran
(gyration). Katib Cel,ebi refers to KadTzade saying:
He resuscitated the ancient objection to dancing

and gyrating, and won the enmity of the entire
Khalwati and MevlevI Orders, as well as of the
cemetery-caretakers. Every single one of his
sermons contained some jibe or sneer, like *0 you
holy ones, who kick the floor-boards and blow the
whistle’...129
As we shall see in Part III, the KSdizadelis would also
oppose the zikri-i cehrT and devran in their writings.
Finally, we should note that the Halvetis were involved in
the controversy over coffee-drinking and tobacco-smoking in
128
Zilfi, ".Revivalism," 267-268.
129
Katib yelebi, Balance. 136.
53
the seventeenth century. For them, coffee and tobacco were
important stimulants
which kept them awake during the halvet
130
(retirement for devotion). The Kadlzadelis considered coffee-
drinking and tobacco-smoking as innovations which Muslims should
refrain from.
Despite the outward differences between them, the
individual mystics and the ’ulema* still shared much in essence.
Submission to the Kur’an and the sunnet was an indispensable duty
for such great mystics as Bayezld el-Bistam! (d. 261/874), Cuneyd
el-Bagdad! (d. 298/910), Mevlana Cellleddln-i Rum! (d. 672/1273)
and Hoca Bahaeddin Naksibend (d. 791/1389). Imam Malik (d:
179/795) concisely points out that the knowledge of the mystics
and the ’ulema’ are in fact complementary: "He who turns to

I
mysticism without studying fxkh becomes a heretic. He! who
plunges into flkh without knowing mysticism becomes an impious

131
person. The truth arises from the unity of the two.” i
How then, did disputes evolve from this potential harmony
between the ’ulema* and the mystics? This usually took place
when one of the two sides or both were on the fringes of
extremism. The rigidly orthodox members of the ’ulema* denounced
those who did not strictly follow the sunnet as innovators. Not
infrequently, the Sufis with their special mystical practices

130
B. G. Martin, "A Short History of the Khalwati' Order
of Dervishes," in Scholars. Saints and Sufis, ed.Nikki Keddie
(Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972), 287-288'.
131
Uludag, I s l a m Dusuncesinin Yapisi. 167-169; Mustafa
Kara, Tekkeler ve Zaviyeler. 2d ed. (Istanbul: Dergah Yayinlari,
1980), 79-81.
64
totally foreign to the non-mystic became the target of such
accusations. The ’ulema* as representatives of the established
SiinnT religion saw themselves responsible for its protection.
Indeed, institutionalized Suflsm in the form of religious orders
could prosper to the extent that the.state permitted them. The
government particularly opposed orders with extremist beliefs, and
esoteric nractices such as the BayramTs. The Melamis. andthe

132
Kalenderls.
A different approach to the movement is also possible'
particularly when one considers the conditions of decline in the
Ottoman Empire. According to this view, Kaglzade Mehmed Efendi
and his followers aimed at preventing what they saw asthe
social, moral, and political vices in the Ottoman Empire. Let us
note, however, that this approach is not mutually exclusive with
the previous one.It may be that the clashes between the
orthodox 'ulemS* and the Sufis were the outside appearance of

I
some deep-seated reasons behind the movement, i.e. an Islamic
attempt at correcting the alleged decadence in the Ottoman

133
Empire.
Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to associate
movements of religious reform with periods of crisis. Ibn
Teymiye (d. 728/1328) set the example for such a reform attempt
in a period when the Mongol invasions led to social and
~ 132
inalcxk, Ottoman Empire. 186-202.
133
As we have seen in the Introduction, Necati Oztiirk
interprets the movement primarily along these lines.
65
134
political disruption in the Mamluk State. Likewise., the
Kadizadeli movement took place in a period when the Ottoman
Empire faced decline as I have attempted to survey in Part I of
this thesis. While the case of certain Ottoman intellectuals
such as Ko<?i Bey and Katib Celebi, .who produced works offering
solutions to the problems which the Ottomans had to deal with, is
quite well known, the contribution of ssri*at-minded reformers to
the intellectual fermentations in response to the perceptions of
decline is largely overlooked. The mentor of the movement,
Kadizade himself, produced a major work, an expanded translation
of Ibn Teymiye’s Sivasetu*s-SerfTve. in which he set out to give
advice to Murad IV on social and political reform. That the
Kadlzadelis were deeply aware of a crisis and concerned with
reforming it is clear also from reading another reform treatise
of the seventeenth century,

the anonymous Kitabu Mesalihi’l-
135
Miislimin ve Menafi*i*1-Mu*minin. This work can only be
attributed to someone who had bfeen entrenched in or at least
deeply inlfuenced by the Kadizadeli movement. Hence, the
Kadizadeli movement is at least partially to be understood as a
reform-oriented response to a perceived decadence in the Ottoman
order in the seventeenth century.
134
Henri Laoust. Les Schismes dans I ’Tgiam (Paris:
Payot, 1965), 251-276; EI^ s.v. "Ibn Taymiyya," by Henri Laoust.
135
"Kitabu Mesalihi’l-Muslimin ve Menafi*i ’1-Mu’minin,"
in Osmanli Devlet Teskilatina'Pair Kavnaklar.ed. Ya$ar Yucel
(Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1988). For the attribution
of this work to a Kadizadeli, see,Cental Kafadar, The Mvth of
the Golden Age: The Image of the Sulevmanic Era in Ottoman
Historical Consciousness, paper presented as part of the
conference on "The Age of Suleyman the Magnificent" held at
Princeton University, 20-22 Novtember 1987.
66
But it had its particular program for reform which did not
necessarily coincide with the orientation of the Kadlzadelis'
much better known kanun-minded contemporaries.
Kadizade Mehmed Efendi *s proposal was a return to the
practices and values in Islamic society extant during the
Prophet’s time. He would realize this .by. calling the people to
obey the religious duty el-emr bi’l-ma’ruf ve’l nehv 'ani’l-
munker. We shall treat KSdTzade’s views on Islamic reform later
in this chapter. Let us now examine the careers and works of the '
two leaders, Kadizade and SivasT, respectively.
67
136
Kadizade Mehmed Efendi
Kadizade Mehmed Efendi b. DoganT Mustafa Efendi was born in
Balikesir where his father was a kadi. In his youth, he studied
with Birgivi Mefcmed Efendi’s students. He then came to Istanbul

137
and became the student of Tursunzade ’Abdullah Efendi.
According to the rules of promotion, he first became a supervisor

138
(mu’Id) under him, then kursu sevhi and va*iz (preacher).
Unfortunately, the sources do not provide any specific
information as to where he gave sermons in this period.
We know, however, that with the encouragement of Tercuman
seyhi 'Omer Efendi, Kadizade developed an interest in mysticism

139
and became 'Omer Efendi’s disciple (amrTd). Since Sufism did
/
not suit his character, like his intellectual predecessor
Birgivl Mehmed Efendi, he departed from this path and turned to
teaching and preaching, instead. For a considerable time, he

i
gave sermons in the Murad Pasa Mosque. The main sources to which
he referred were the scholar Cami’ and the works entitled
136
The main biographical sources on âîzade’s iife
are Katib Celebi, Balance. 132-138; M.Tahir, OM, 1:402; Seygl,
Vekayi*. fols. 32a-32b; ’Ussakizade, Zevl. fols. 26a-26b.
137
For Tursunzade’s biography, see 'Ata’l ’s Hada’ik.
533-534. * ’ *"
138
Kiirsii sevhleri: the preachers who would give sermons
after the Friday prayer. They were also called "Friday preachers"
(Cuma va’izleri). Pakalm, Sozluk. 2: 345.
139
'Omer FanI Efendi (d. 1033/1623).
68
140
Tefslr. Muhtasar and Sadru *s-Serl *a .
Kadizade became renowned for his eloquent style in speech
and his firm knowledge. He was then appointed as preacher in the
Sultan Sellm Mosque where he filled the position of Birgilizade
Fazlullah Efendi. In the beginning of the year 1032/1622,
Kadizade began to give sermons in the Sultan Bayezid Mosque.
According to Katib Celebi*s account, Mehmed Efendi was appointed

141
to the Sultan Mehmed (Fatih) Mosque next. In the year
1038/1628-29, when Katib Celebi first attended Kadlzade’s sermons '
in that mosque, Mehmed Efendi was already a celebrated preacher.
He taught his students such important books as Beyzavl’s

142
Tefslr. Ihra-i 'Ulum. Serh-i Mevakif. Purer and TarTkat. In
the year 1041/1631, Kadizade Mehmed Efendi was appointed to the
Suleymaniye Mosque. At the end of the year 1041/1632, he became
140
Nureddln 'Abdurrahman b. Ahmed el-Cami'
(d. 898/1492): a well-known Iranian poet and scholar during the
time of the Timurids. KSdizade taught the commentary which
Nureddln el-Cami' wrote on Ibn Hacib Cemaleddin Ebu 'Amr 'Osman
b. 'Cmer’s (d. 646/1248) work entitled Kafiye; Tefslr attests
to the well-known commentary on the Kur’an by Kadi BeyzavT
(d. 691/1291?). The title of the work is Envaru*t-Tenzil ve
EsrSru ’t-Te*vil: Muhtasar is the work by Ahmed b. Muhammed
el-KudurT (d. 423/1037), a famous scholar of flkh. on the
branches of $anefl law; Sadru *s-Serl'a is a work by BurhSn
es-SerT'a Mahmud (d. 750/1349). The full title of the work is
Vikavetil*r-Rivave f~ Mesa’ili’i-Hidave.
141
Katib Celebi. Balance. 135.
142
Ibid., 135-136. For TefsTr. see note .140; thva-i
'Ulumii *d-Pin is the famous work of Ebu Hamid Muhammed b. Muhammed
ei-Gazal! (d. 505/1111); Serh-i Mevakif is CiircSnl’s commentary
on I d ’s work Mevakif on theology; for CiircanI and IcI see note
108; Purer is Molla Husrev’s (d. 880/1475) work on fikh. The
full title of the book is Purerii* 1-Hiilrh-am f~ Serh-i
Gureri *1-Ahkam: Tarlkat: Birgivl Mehmed Efendi’s book
Tarlkat-i Muhamn»>rfi.
69
preacher in the Aya$ofya Mosque, the most prestigious office in
143
his carjser line. Kadizade joined the Sevan Campaign together
with Murad IV in the beginning of the year 1045/1635. He fell
ill, however, and had to return to Istanbul. Towards the end of
the same year, he passed away whil'e still holding the position of
144
preacher in the Ayasofya Mosque.
From an examination of the sources on his life, Kadizade
appears as a preacher who was well versed in the Islamic sciences
and piously scrupulous in following the sunnet and the serf'at.
He was occupied with classes and instruction four days a week.
In the remaining days, he gave sermons to enlighten the people-
'Ussaklzade and Katib Celebi note that Kadizade consecrated
himself to the benefit of mankind, educated many students, and

145
saved them from ignorance.
Kadizade Mehmed Efendi was also famous for his wit. In
discussions, he
would quickly silence his opponent according to
146
the saying: "A ready reply is the best ally.” Particularly on
the subject of the Sufis’ dances (sema* and devran). $a4~z&de
came into clash with the Kalvetl and the MevievI Sufis, calling
them "O you holy ones, who kick the floor-boards and blow the
143
Seyhl, Vekavi *. fol. 32a; 'Ussaklzade, Zevl. fol.
26b.
144
'Ussaklzade, gevl. fol. 26b; Katib Celebi, Fezleke.
2:182; §eyhl, Vekavi'. fol. 32b.
145
'Ussaklzade, Zevl. fol. 26b; Katib Celebi, Fezleke.
2:182; §eyhl, VekKvi'. fol. 32b.
146 Katib Celebi, Balance. 136.
whistle." The Sufis Sivasi Efendi and Isma'Tl Efendi replied to
these condescending wordsof Ka4izade by calling him "a heretic

147
and an infidel who denied the Saints."
Besides the mystics, KacJTzade also opposed scholars who
dealt with philosophy and logic. He acted according to the adage
that science and religion consist of fikh (Muslim canonical
jurisprudence), tefslr
(commentary on the Kur’an) and hadTs (a
148
tradition of the words and acts of the Prophet). Indeed, his
fame in these three sciences became widespread. According to '
Katib Celebi, £adlzade’s sermons were mostly simple and lacking
in depth. When he came across philosophical matters in his
classes of tefsTr. he would say: "The kadi philosophizes

149
here." In KadTzade’s view, philosophy is not worth much.
Intelligent critics would not submit to it:
"Who’d give a farthing for philosophy? 150

Before it what shrewd banker bows the knee?"
147
Ibid., 136-137. isma'Tl Efendi is MevlevT Ismail
Dede (d. 1040/1630).
148
'UssakTzSde, gevl. fol. 26b.
149
pi4Tzade alludes to £a41 Beyzavl (d. 691/1291?) here.
See Katib Celebi, Mizanu*1-Hakk fi ihtivari*1-Ahak-k "En DoSruvu
Secmek tcin Hak Terazisi." ed. Orfaan §aik Gobyay (Istanbul,
1980), 114.
150
Katib Celebi, Balance. 136.
71
He would also say:
151
"Who sheds a tear if a logician dies?"
From reading 'Uâklzade, Kadizade appears as a witty
preacher who could attract a large number of people to his views.
Bursali Mehmed fahir, basing his -knowledge on Na'Tma, notes that
Kadizade lacked asceticism in the true sense of the word.
(takva-i hakTkTye). According to this biographer, it.would not
be wrong, therefore,
to describe Ka<JTzade as belonging to that
'52
group of 'ulema' "who could not unite the hearts of Muslims."
151
Katib Celebi, Balance. 136. 0.§.Gdkyay interprets
this passage somewhat differently but his reading, too, reflects
a similar disrespect on Kadizade's part towards philosophers:
"No need to worry about logicians
For they do not belong to religious people."
when one thinks of this couplet in connection with the previous
one, Gokyay’s interpretation is convincing. Accordingly, then,
logicians may study philosophy because they are unbelievers
anyway. It is unsuitable for such a great scholar as &adx
BeyzavT, however, to refer to philosophy in his Kur'anic
commentary. Katib Celebi, MTzan. 114.
152
M.Tahir, 0J1, 1:402.
72
153
Kadizade Mehmed Efendi*s Works
154
1. Tacu*r-Res5*il ve Minhacu’1-Vesa* il
This work of Kadizade is particularly pertinent for
understanding him as a reform-oriented intellectual. We
shall therefore analyze it in more detail later in this
chapter. Tacf;'r-Resa' il is an expanded translation of
Ibn Teymiye’s Siyasetu*s-Ser*~ve. and expresses K&JTzade’s
views on political reform.The author presented it to Murad
IV. This book has two other sections: a.puiizSde’s views
on worship, transactions and retributions, b. the methods of
warfare based on Aristotle’s work on this subject.
irsadu* 1-cUkuli'1-MiistakTme ile’l-Usuli’1-Kav~me bi ibtali’l-

155 s
Bid’ati’s-Saklme.
Kadizade wrote this book in Arabic and divided it into four
sections (babs). trsadu’l-'Ukul primarily consists of the

\
author’s views on sema’ and raks. innovations as well as
piety and asceticism. The work also treats some important
issues of controversy between the Sufis and the £a<pzadelis
such as the faith of Pharaoh, music and visiting tombs.
153
$adlzade Mehmed Efendi wrote numerous works.
My purpose in this section is not to give a comprehensive
bibliography but to introduce those works of ESÎzade that
are of relevance for our subject. Unless otherwise
indicated, the copies of £adlzade’s works to which I refer
here are in Suleymaniye Library. Their dates of compilation
are not known.
154
Suleymaniye L., MS. Haci Mahmud Efendi 192&.
155
Suleymaniye L., MS. Fatih 5407/2.
73
156
3. Kami'atu*!-Bid*at Nasiratu* s-Sunnet Damigatu’1-Miibteda*
Kadizade wrote this work in Arabic. It consists of his
views about innovations and the practice of performing the
supererogatory prayers in congregation on the nights of
Rega* ib. Berat and Kadir.
4. Three of Kadizade’s shorter risales which I have examined
are very similar in content and wording. This suggests that
they are probably copies of the same work. They all treat
/
subjects such as religious obligations, ritual worship,
performing the supererogatory prayers in congregation.
These are:
157
a. Tman ve Kamaz Risalesi
158
b. *ilmihal Risalesi
159
c. Risale-i Kadizade
160
5. Risale-i Kadizade Berave Devran
In this risale. £a4Izade treats Sufi practices such as gikr
and devran. regarding them as innovations.
j 156
: Suleymaniye L., MS. Birinci Serez 3876.
• 157
t Suleymaniye L., MS. Ayasofya K 4871.
| 158
| Suleymaniye L., MS. Haci Besir Aga 397/3.
I ‘ 159
I Topkapi Palace L., MS. E.H. 1739/5. '
I 160
: Topkapi Palace L., MS. E.H. 1739/3. Another copy
j of this risale is in Siileymaniye L., MS. Antalya-Tekeiioflu
| 799, fols. 108b-109a.
74
'AbdiilmecTd SivasI Efendi (Sevh Ebu’l-Havr MecdeddTn
'AbdiilmecTd b. Sevh Muharrem b.

EbT* I-Bevek-gfr
_ 7 161
Mehmed b. 'Arif es-sehlr SivasT)
'Abdiilmecld SivasI was born in ‘the town of Zile near Sivas.
His date of birth (971/1563) coincides with the death of
'AbdiilmecTd SirvanT and in the memory of this Halvet! pin. he was

162
named 'AbdiilmecTd. In his family, the young 'AbdiilmecTd had
the chance to benefit from the deep knowledgeof his father
Muharrem Efendi (d. 1000/1591) and his uncle SemseddTn SivasI (d.
163
1006/1597) both of whom were HalvetT sevhs. Having memorized
the Kur’an, he also learned Arabic from his father Muharrem
Efendi. His first systematic studies on the foundations and laws
of science began under the guidance of his uncle SemseddTn
SivasT. 'AbdiilmecTd studied flkh. tefslr and hadTs with him. He
also prospered in ma'rifet (spiritual knowledge). Finally, his
teacher permitted him to teach the Kur’anic commentary by

164
ZemahserT.
161
The main biographical sources on 'AbduimecTd SivasT’s
life are AyvansarSyl, Mesavih. fol. 10a; M.NazmT, Hedive. fols.
57a-61a; M.Sureyya, Sicil. 3:400; M.Tahir, OM, 1:120; §eyhT,
Vekavi1. fols. 34a-35a; 'Ussaklzade, Zevl. 29a-32b. ~
162
'AbdiilmecTd SirvanT’s life, works and miracles can be
found in M.NazmT, Hedive. fols. 19a-27a.
163
Muharrem b. Mehmed b. 'Arif SivasI (d. 1000/1591).
For his life, see M.Tahir, OM'C 2:21; SemseddTn SivasT
(d. 1006/1597). For his biography see M.Tahir, OM, 1:95-96 and
M.NazmT, Hedive. fols. 27a-52b.
164
The commentary on the Kur’an by Ebii’l-Kasim Maljmud b.
'Omer ez-Zemahserl (d. 538/1143). The full title of the work is
el-Kessaf 'an Hakaviki’t-TenzTl.
75
When SivasI Efendi was over thirty, he inclined towards
mysticism and requested his uncle's permission to enter the
religious order. At the end of spiritual endeavors, 'Abdiilmecld
SivasI received a diploma (icazetname) from

§emseddln SivasT
165
which marked the beginning of his car-rer as a mystic.
Upon the death of Receb b. §eyh ibrahlm Cemaleddln SivasI,
the nephew and disciple of Semseddln SivasI, the dervishes of the
order unanimously agreed to send 'Abdiilmecld Efendi to Sivas.
Thus, he moved to the lodge of SemseddTn SivasI and began to '

166
teach and preach there. His reputation reached Mehmed III
(1003/1595-1012/1603) who invited him to Istanbul by sending him

167
an imperial decree. In line with the verse "Believers, obey
Allah and the Apostle and those in

authority among you,"
/
'AbdiilmecTd SivasI accepted the sultan’s invitation and came to
168
Istanbul.
SivasI Efendi settled* in a house near the Aya§ofya Mosque.

169
After a few days, he began to deliver sermons there.
Sun'ullah Efendi (d. 1021/1612), the sevhulislam of the time, had
great affection for SivasI Efendi. By his offer, 'AbduimecTd
103
M. Nazml, Hedive. fol.58b.
166
Ibid., fols. 59a-59b. For Receb Efendi’s biography
see M. Tahir, OM, 1:75.
*167
The text of the fermau is in M. NazmI, Hedive. fol.
59b; $eyhl, Vekavi'. fol.35; 'Ussaklzade, Zevl. fol.30a.
168
Verse 59:4.
169
As _we have seen in examining his life, Kadizade
preached in the Ayasofya Mosque later, from the end of the year
1041/1632, until his death in 1045/1635.
76
170
SivasI began to preach in the mosque near Atpazan on Fridays.
After a few months, he began to give sermons in the Sehzade
Mosque where he preached for two years. In order to keep the
seyhulislam pleased, he also continued to preach in the Sun'ullah
Efendi Mosque. He later began to preach in the Sultan Sellm
Mosque and continued to keep this position until the year
1026/1617. In this year, the construction of the Sultan Abused
Mosque was completed.

SivasI Efendi preached in this mosque
171
until his death in 1049/1639.
Biographical sources such as 'ussaklzade and Mehmed NazmI
Efendi describe 'AbduimecTd SivasI with praise. According to
them, he was the chief of God’s saints on earth, a greatly
learned man in the exoteric and the esoteric sciences ('ilm-
i zahir ve batin) and a treasure of spiritual revelation. He' was
believed by many of his contemporaries to have been endowed with
the power to work miracles and his poetry was full of wise
172 |
admonitions.
170
This mosque was originally known as Bey Mescidi.
Seyhulislam Sun'ullah Efendi turned it into a mosque and it was
thereafter known as Sun'ullah Cami'i. For Sun'ullah Efendi’s
terms of office as sevhuliglSm. see Uzurcarsili, Osmanli Tarihi.
2, pt.2:458-461.
171
Ayvansarayi, Hadrfcatii11-PvSmi ' (Istanbul,
1281/1864-65), 1: 197-199.
172
'Us$aklz5de, Zevl. fol. 31a; M. NazmI, Hedive.
fol. 61a.
77
173
’AbduimecTd SivasT Efendi*s Works
'Abdulmecid SivasT has written more than twenty works of
which the following are the most relevant for this thesis:
174
1. Dilreru *1- ’Aka *id
In the introduction to his work, ’AbduimecTd SivSsT
indicates that he has written this work for the
establishment of truth and the eradication of falsehood.
Besides Kur’anic verses and traditions of the Prophet, the
author refers to some principal books of flkh.kelam and
commentaries. These are mainly Mevakif. Mekasid, the
commentary on ’Aka* id. the work of CelaleddTn ed-DevvanT,'

175
Filch- i Ekber and the work by Isfahan!.
SivasT "Efendi treats a wide range of topics in his work.
These are primarily matters of spiritual knowledge
(ma’rifet) and faith (Tman1 the vision of God (ru’vetullah),
the description of the Prophet and his miraculous journey to
heaven (Mi*rac1. the creeds of Ebu HanTfe (d. 150/769),
MaturTdl (d. 333/944) and E$’arT (d. 324/936?), the
description of saints and their miracles. There are also
173
For a list of ’AbduimecTd SivasT’s works, see
M.Tahir, GM, 1:120.
174
Suleymaniye L., MS. Mihri$ah Sultan 300/1.
175
For Mevakif. Mekasid and ’Aka*id see note 108;
CelaleddTn Muhammed b. Es'ad ed-Dewan! {d. 908/1502-3), a
celebrated Persian scholar who wrote on dogmatics, mysticism and
philosophy, has a work on religious precepts which is entitled
isbat-i Vacib: Fikh-i Ekber: the well-known work of Ebu HanTfe
N'u’man b. Sabit (d. 150/769); SemseddTn Mahmud b. 'Abdurrahman
el-IsfahanT’s (d. 833/1430) work entitled Serfr-i TevalT is the
author’s commentary on Kadi BeyzavT’s (d. 691/1291?) book
TevalT’ul-EnvSr.
78
sections on the necessity for appointing an imam and
the. description of a good sultan. These parts reflect
SivasT Efendi*s ideas on political rule. 'AbdiilmecTd SivasT
also deals with some of the controversial issues raised by
the Kadlzadelis. These are, el-emr bi’l-ma’ruf ve’l-
nehv cani*1 -munker and the benefit of prayers of the dead
t'fl nef’-i du’a* il-eavat i.
176
2. Diirerii *1-* Aka* id ve Gurer Kull Sa’ik ve Ka:id
The title of this work indicates a reference to Molla
Husrev’s much-respected legal work Durerii* 1-
Hukkam ft Serh-i Gureri*1-Ahkam. This book of SivasT, where
he expresses some additional views on political rule, is
similar to Dtireru* 1-* Aka’id in content. The author states
that he started collecting the reference books which he
needed for writing this work when he was over 50 years
old. Therefore, it must be written sometime after 1021-
22/1613.
177
3. S i z a ’atii* l-Va* izTn
This work, originally written in Arabic, was later
translated into Turkish by the author. It treats such
subjects as kinds of wisdom f«ks5m-i hikmet). good morals,
patience and asking forgiveness from God, zikr and devran
176
Suleymaniye L., MS. Laleli 2408/1.
177
Suleymaniye L., MS. K 1 I 1 9 Ali Pasa 1032/2.
79
permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

of the Sufis, etc. 'Abdulmecrd Sivasi refers to such great
Suf~ masters as Gazalf (d. 505/1111) and Necmeddin-i Kubra
(d. 623/1226) in his work.
178
4. Nesarihu*1-Muluk
SivasT Sfendi presented this work to Afcmed I
(10i2/1603-1026/1617). In this book, he treats such
subjects as religious duties, repentance,zik£, dances of the
SufTs, invoking blessings upon the Prophet, and
innovations. He refers to such Sufi masters as Ebu Talib
el-Mekkl (d. 386/996), SehabeddTn Ebu Hafs 'Oner b.
'Abdullah es-Suhreverdl (d. 632/1234) and GazalT (d*
505/1111).
_ 179
5. Letaifu*1-Ezhar ve Leza*izu'1-Esmar
Sivasi Efendi has written this work in Turkish by the order
of Ahmed I. The book deals with such subjects as ficts
approved and disapproved by God, duties of the Muslim, the
essentials of faith, and includes some brief sections on
political rule and bribery as well.
180
6 . MiIvaru:t-TarTk
In this work, the author deals with the essentials and
different stages of tarTkat. conditions for being a perfect
person Ik»mi1 —i mukemmel) and various kinds of zikr.
178
Suleymaniye L., MS. Laleli 1613m.
179
Suleymaniye L., MS. Mihri§ah Sultan 255.
180
Suleymaniye L., MS. Mihrisah Sultan 300/3.
80
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

181
7. Divan-l tlahlyat
'AbdiilmecTd Sivasi also wrote poems under the pseudonym of
SeyhT. Besides divine love and mystical states, he also
underlines the clash between the men of Epicurean spirit
(rinds) and the ascetics (zahids) in his poems which was an
old tradition in Islamic poetry. While the rind represents
the SufT, the zahid stands for the ascetic who interprets
religion outwardly.
181
'Abdulmecid SivSsI, Abdulmecid Sivasi Divani, ed.
Recep Toparli (Sivas: Dilek Matbaasi, 1984), 9-10. A manuscript
copy of the divan is in Suleymaniye L., MS. Lala Ismail- 453/1.
81
Kadizade Efendi vs. Sivasi Efendi;
Three Incidents of Dispute
Having examined the backgrounds and the relevant works of
Kadizade and Sivasi, let us now ’turn to the disputes between
them. From the sources on the movement it appears that at least
on three occasions the two leaders actually encountered each
other, most of the time in the presence of the sultan and
officials of high rank.
It was in mid-RebT'yulewel 1043/September 1633 that the
first ooen clash took place between these two famous

*182
preachers. People had congregated in Yeni Cami' in order to
celebrate the feast of MevlXd (Prophet Muhammed's birth) as it
was the custom. Murad IV himself and some *ulema' including
Sevhvilislam Yahya Efendi were among the audience. The two
prominent sevhs. whp had been building up resentment against one
another, took their turns to preach from the pulpit. First,
SivasT Efendi delivered a sermon in a manner of ironic reproach
to Ka^Tzade. Many among the common people and men of high rank
showed favor to him. Then, Ka^Tzade mounted the pulpit and gave
an eloquent sermon beginning with the commentary on the verse
"Allah commands you to hand back your trusts to their rightful
owners"(4:58).
182 3 e
Katib Qelebi, Fezleke. 2:155; Na'Ima, TarTh. 3:164.
82
KadTza.de talked much on encouraging the application of
justice and forbidding evil (nehv-i munker). Na'fma states that
Murad IV had affection for him and accepted his words as well-
grounded and effective. People in the sultan's company, too,
would listen to Kadlzade intently. _ As the situation required,
KadTzSde told a story in his sermon. Accordingly, while goca
Nasreddln was plowing the field with two oxen he would beat the
old ox when the young one moved. To people asking the reason for
his behavior, goca replied: "The young ox cannot move unless the
old one beckons him to do so." This story was meant to be an
allusive censure to men of high rank and esteem (the bibar).
Many people present in the gathering became embarrassed. Some of
the 'ulema* wanted to take down Kadizade from the pulpit by
force. The Sevhulislam Zekeriyazade Yahya Efendi, although he
was an opponent of Kadizade, prevented them by

"The saying:
183
sultan’s presence is not the place for such impertinent acts."
Later, somebody reminded Kadizade that the sevhulislam hindered a
group of *ulem5* who opposed his sermon and wanted to takehim
down fom the pulpit by force.

Kadizade jokingly replied: "a
184
record of the accuser" (sebtu*1-mudde’I ). By these words, he
probably denied that such acts had taken place against him.
According to Katib Qelebi, after the congregation in the
mosque disseminated, Murad IV ordered that the taverns in the
183
Yahya Efendi’s terms of office as sevhulislam were
between the years 1031/1622-1032/1623, 1034/1625-1041/1632 and
1043/1634-1053/1644. AJimed Rif'at, Davhatu*1-Mfesgvih ma* Zevl
(Istanbul, n.d.}, 46-47; $.Sami, Kamusu’l-A'lam, 6:4793.
184
Na'ImA, TarTh. 3:164.
83
city be demolished. * Kadizade Efendi’s sermon, in Katib Qelebi’s ;
185
viewj has been influential in this decision of the sultan.
More probably, the sultan perhaps took this measure for preventing
further disorder in a society where the supporters of Kadizade
and Sivasi were likely to cause quarrel. It should be remembered
that Murad IV, an eleven-year-old child when he ascended the
throne in 1623, had already reached maturity by the year 1633.
He therefore began to exercise ruling power which previously
belonged to his mother Kosem Sultan and the agas in the-

186
palace.
Indeed, the above-mentioned anecdote which Kadizade relates
attests to his unrestrained and fearless manner of speech; "okuz"
(ox) is a serious term of insult in Turkish. We could speculate
that Kadizade trusted the sultan’s tolerant attitude towards him.
Otherwise, he would not dare to relate this anecdote in the
imperial presence.
In his work Hedivetu*1-thvan. Mehmed NazmI Efendi relates
two incidents centering around the objects’ praise of God
(tesblh) and eating sea food. Neither Katib Celebi nor Na'Ima
lists these issues.among the matters of dispute between KSdlzade
and Sivasi which we shall examine in Part III of this thesis. I
will therefore treat these two issues separately here.
[ 185
t KStib Celebi, Fezleke. 2:155.„ „
I 186 " "
t _ Uzurcar§ili, Osmanli Tarihi. 3, pt.l: 177-186;
| IA, 1971 ed., s.v. "Murad IV," by Cavid Baysun.
t
|
84
Let us now turn* to the first incident which Helmed NazmI Efendi
187 . _
relates in Kedivetii *1-ihvan. Sultan Murad IV asked Sivasi
Efendi: "Do objects praise God

words or bysilently"?
188
"Esvanm tesblhi kal ile midir hal ile midir"? The Halvetl
sevh answered: "It is by words and, glory be to God, some of our
.dervishes hear it."
The sultan then invited Kadizade and told him: ”$S^T°31U > I
asked Sivasi Efendi about the manner in which objects praise God.
He said that it was by words and that some of their dervishes
hear it. Do you agree"?
Kadizade replied:
No, my sul£an, God, may His name be exalted, says

in the Kur’an: "The seven heavens, the earth, and
all who dwell in them give glory ' to Him. All
creatures celebrate His praises. Yet you cannot
understand their praises."(17:44). That is to say,
all objects are in praise of God. Yet, you do not
understand, nor do you hear them. When Sivasi
Efendi says that his dervishes know and hear the
tesblh. he denies the incontrovertible proofs
Inas^) in the Kur’an. His utterance is equal to
blasphemy. 189
This time, the sultan called ‘Abdulmecld Sivasi and told
him: "KaiJIogiu blames you with denying the nass of the Kur’as and
says that you have become an infidel. What do you say"?
187
M. NazmI, Hedive. fols.87a-88a.
188 ‘ "
Lisan-i hal: the manrer, appearance or state of a
person which silently appeals to the mind or the heart. This
definition is taken from Harun Tolasa, ed., Sevhulislam Bahavl
Efendi Dlvanindan Secmeler. (Istanbul: Kervan Kitapgilik, 1979),
267.
189
M.NazmI, Hedive. fol. 87a.
O C
ci %/
Sivasi Efendi replied:
My sultan, this ignorant man is a stubborn person

who is unaware of the commentary on the £ur’ah.
He should necessarily accept my victory in. this
intellectual discussion. In any case, let us
invite the sevhulislam and the kadi *asfcers and
mutually refer our dispute to their court of
justice. 190
The sevhulislam and the kadi *askers were invited. Upon
hearing the case, Sevhulislam Yahya Efendi said:
My sultan, Kadizade may think that we have a

prejudice against him. Let us therefore invite
Sami Huseyin Efendi, a virtuous person who is imam
and sarav hocasi (teacher in the palace). Let him
decide the case as arbitrator between the two
sides, tfe shall act as a court of appeal. 191
Huseyin Efendi was invited as arbitrator and he listened to
both sides. First, Sivasi Efendi repeated his point saying that
objects praise God by words and that those capable of spiritual
communion with God (erbab-i mukasefe) do hear it. When
Kadlzade’s turn came, he referred to verse 17:44 again. Kadizade
then added that Sivasi Efendi, with his claims of hearing the
tesblh, ran counter to the Kur’anic verses and therefore became

192
an infidel.
In his response to )>adlzade, Sivasi Efendi said:
It became clear that you are ignorant of the

commentaries on the Kur’an. The people addressed
in this verse are infidels. In case the statement
is a general one, its negation is also general.
190
Ibid., fol. 87a.
191
Ibid., fols. 87a-87b. For the biography of Sami
Huseyin Efendi (d. 1069/1659), see Seyhl, Vekavi'. fol. 127a.
192
Ibid., fol. 87b.
86
The negative does not apply to the whole, however.
Namely, if all do not hear and understand the
praise, this does not necessitate the fact that
some do not hear and understand it. Haven’t we
studied in logic that the opposite of a complete
negation is a partial requirement? The verse
therefore means that some people hear the praise.
Verses to this effect are endless in the $ur’ah.
For example, all Sunni ‘ulema* believe in the sight
of God. (ru*vetullah). 193
SivSsI Efendi supported his point by referring to the
verses "And some faces, that Day will be sad and dismal" (75:22)
and "On that day there shall be joyous faces looking towards
their Lord." (75:23). He then quoted the following tradition and
the verse: "You will see God just as you see the full moon at
night" and "No mortal eyes can see him." (6:103). Sivasi Efendi
interpreted this verse saying that all eyes do not see but some
eyes do. As we have seen, he interpreted verse 17:44 similarly
saying that some people hear and understand the praises.
In order to prove that objects praise God by words, Huseyin

I
Efendi, too, quoted the verses "...we have been taught the tongue
of birds" (27:16) and "...an ant said to her sisters: go into
your dwellings , ants, ..." (27:18). Huseyin Efendi continued
his words saying:

All great prophets and gracious saints know and
hear the praise which occurs silently. There
should be no use in continuing this dispute.
("Makam-i imtinanda bir fa’ide nTmnmatr 1»?mi
gelur"). My sultan, Sivasi Efendi is a learned
and righteous person. All of his words are
truthful. Particularly his statements which pour
forth eloquent sayings concerning that £ur’anic
verse are in concordance with other commentators.194
193
M. NazmI, Hedive. fol. 87b.
194
Ibid., fol. 87b.
87
Sivasi Efendi then addressed Murad IV: "My Sultan,
according to a tradition which Imam Muslim related on the
authority of Ibn 'Omer, KSgizade has become an infidel. He
therefore has to reaffirm his faith iaoaediately in your
presence."
When Sivasi Efendi asked the sevhulislam for an
explanation, he responded by saying: "The experts in the canon
law of Islam (fukaha*). too, have acted in line with the
tradition and favored the view that an accusation of heresy is
present here."
Murad IV turned to Sivasi Efendi and said: "Make Kadizade
reaffirm his faith." Accordingly, Sivasi Efendi had Kadizade
repeat the articles of Muslim belief and made him renew his
faith.
Apparently, Kadizade managed to attract the attention of
the audience in the previous incident which took place during the
congregation of the Mevlld. In the dispute concerning the
tesblh. however, Sivasi Efendi was superior. He owed his victory
to a profound knowledge of tefslr and ability to interpret the
rules of logic.
This particular contention on the "praise of God" reveals
one important aspect of Kadizade Mehmed Efendi’s thought: he
understood the Kur’anic verses literally, leaving no place for
interpretation. As we have already seen, the selefls, too,
88
195
accepted the na^s according to their outward meaning.
'Abdulmecld Sivasi’s commentary on verse 17:44 was very different
from KacJTzade's literalist outlook. Sivasi Efendi was aiming to
penetrate into the profound meaning of the verse behind its
verbal interpretation through mystical practices. These are kesf
(revelation of mysteries), fevz (enlightenment) and ilhaa (divine

196 .
revelation). Finally, we should state that this story is
mentioned only in Hedêt!!* 1 -ihvan

w
and therefore its reliability
is not confirmed by other sources on the Kadizadelis.
Incidents also took place between the two sevhs on matters
related to daily life. Mehmed Nazal Efendi notes that on every
occasion Kadizade accused Sivasi of being erroneous. Once,
Sivasi Efendi quoted the. verse "It is lawful for you to hunt in
the sea and to eat its fish" (5:96) which he interpreted as
saying that it is canonically lawful to eat the fish caught in
the ;sea. Sivasi Efendi also quoted a tradition of the Prophet
according to which it is impermissible to eat sea food except for

197
fish.
In response, KSdlzSde Efendi claimed that Sivasi Efendi is
mistaken and that it is canonically lawful to eat all kinds of
sea food. Sivasi Efendi replied:
195
See Uludag, ts13.ni Qusuncesinin Yanisi. 33-72.
196 Ibid., 123-172. Uludag defines these terms in his

work.
197
The incident related here is taken from M. NazmI
Efendi, Hedive. fols. 8 8 a-8 8 b. The author does not tell where
and on what occasion Sivasi Efendi quoted verse 5:96 and started
the contention.
89
The impermissibility of sea food has been proven
in books of 'tefslr. hadls and fifrh which are about
seventy in number. It is canonically unlawful to
eat sea food except _fish. Such is the
interpretation of Imam-i A'zam, the founder of our
creed. 198
No arbitration could be found, for the unending disputes
between Kadizade and Sivasi. Finally, Sivasi Efendi dispatched a
letter to Sevhfllislam Yahya Efendi requesting his legal opinion
as to whether it is permissible to eat sea food other than fish.
The following part of the story sounds fictive, an example ,
of typical literary device. In order to find a solution to this
problem, Yahya Efendi invited Sivasi and Kadizade to his house.
He ordered the servants to bring the meal.They brought a tray
full of lobsters, crabs, mussels and oysters offering them to
Kadizade. Only fish was served to Yahya Efendi.and Sivasi Efendi
in two separate plates. Kadizade refused to eat the sea food and
said: "Can these be eaten"? Yahya Efendi,

in turn, scolded
I
Kadizade saying, "0 Efendi, why do you suggest people to eat the
food which you refrain from eating? All books of flkh and §anefl
TmSm<a have concorded on the unlawfulness of this kind of food."
By these words, Yahya Efendi silenced Kadizade.
On the whole, Murad IV seems to have acted "tactfully" vis
a vis the Sufis and the Kadizadelis. He was careful enough not
to let one side win over the other.
198
Ibid., fol. 8 8 a.
90
An incident which took place in the year 1043/1633-34 shows
199
how the sultan viewed the Halvet! §ufls. Murad IV often
dressed in disguise and wandered in the streets to inspect the
behavior of people. Once, 'Abdulmecid Sivasi and his dervishes
were having a friendly conversation at Mlrahor Ko§ku in
Kagithahe. Their talk centered on matters of mysticism and
spiritual knowledge.
During this conversation, Murad IV suddenly approached by
boat. He dispatched a man to bring the books and belongings of
the people at the gathering. When the sultan saw the poetry book
(divan) of Seyhulislam Yahya Efendi, he said: "This is the divan
of our Efendi." He also looked at the other books and said:
We do not meddle in the affairs of the ’ulema* who

travel with their books. We disturb neither the
dervishes who walk around with their prayer beads,
prayer rugs and woolen cloaks, nor. the kuttab
(writers) who walk with pens and materials of
writing in their hands. Let them live in peace. 200
The sultan departed from the gathering after these words.
Na'Tma also notes that Murad IV treated Sivasi Efendi with
great favor. 'Abdulmecid Sivasi participated in the circles of
conservation many times before the sultan’s presence. On several
occasions, he also attended the audience of the sultan
confidentially.
199
Na'Tma, Tarih. 3:163-164. Na'Tma describes Sivasi
Efendi as the chief of the hierarchy of saints and helper of the
age. (kutbii’l-'arifln gavsu*l-vasilln). For an explanation of
these terms, see Trimingham, Sufi Orders. 303, 309.
200
Na'Tma, Tarih.
u 3:163-164.
91
As we have seen from the above-mentioned incidents, Murad
IV skillfully managed to keep good relations both with Kadizade
and Sivasi. But he must have alienated at least some §uffs by
closing down coffee-houses, even temporarily, and by handing out
severe punishments to those who'smoked. In any case, these
famous geyhs had the chance to address the sultan from mosque
pulpits or in special gatherings. While Kadizade and Sivasi
disputed during their sermons, their writings on political rule
display striking similarities. An examination of their writings/
about the conception of state and society will therefore enable
us to have a clearer perception of the movement. Let us begin

with Kadizade Mefymed Efendi.
Kadizade Mefrmed Efendi*s Views on Political Rule
Kadizade expressed his views on political rule in his book

201
Tacu'r-Resa*il ve Minhacu*1-Vesa*il. This work, which
Kadizade presented to Murad IV, is.an expanded translation of Ibn

202
Teymiye’s Sivasetu’s-Ser *Ive fi Islahi’r-Ra(I ve’r-Ba*Tve.
In Tacii ’r-Rasa’11. Kadizade describes the qualities of a good
ruler and advises the sultan on how political rule should be.
Let us now examine the relevant sections of this work which
should enable us to see why Ka4 izade was a serT*at-minded
reformer.
Preceding the translation of Ibn Teymiye’s work, gaglzade
Efendi has an introductory section. Here, he briefly describes

/
the creation of the world as well as his reflections on society
201
Suleymaniye L., MS. Haci Mahmud Efendi 1926. Agah
S i m Levend attributes this book to Kadizade *ilml Metjmed
Amasyali (d. 1045/1635). See A.S.Levend, "Siyasetnameler," in
Turk Dili Arastirmalan Yilligi Belleten (Ankara: T.T.K.
Basimevi, 1963), 179. He then gives reference to two manuscript
copies of this work. The first one is Tacu’r-Resa’il ve
Minhacu *1-Vesa'il. Topkapi Palace L., MS. H. 371. The second
copy is entitled Nushu’l-Hukkam ve Sebebu’n-Nizam. Istanbul
University L., MS. TY 6966. In the Suleymaniye copy, the name of
the author appears on fol. 12 of the work as 5®y& Meijmed b.
Mu§-$afa el-ma'ruf beKadlzade. This proves that the author of the
Suleymaniye manuscript was not Kadizade-i 'tlml. Moreover,
considering the affiliation of Kadizade Mehmed b- Dogan! Mustafa
Efendi with Ibn Teymiye’s thought, it appears more probable that
Tacu’r-Resa’il belongs to him.
202
For a French translation of Ibn Teymiye’s work, see
Le Traite de Droit Public d ’Ibn Taimiva (Traduction annotee de la
Sivasa Sar’iva). trans. Henri Laoust (Beirut: Institut Franqais
de Damas, 1949). I have also referred to a more recent
translation of Ibn Teymiye’s work entitled Ibn Taimiwa on Public
and Private Law in Islam (or Public Policy in Islamic
Jurisprudence). trans. Omar A.Farrukh (Beirut, 1966).
93
and political rule. He. sees human beings as the lubb (essence) of
all existence. By nature, some people are just and righteous
while others are tyrannical and mischief-makers. A ruler is
therefore necessary in every society. His function is to realize
the divine will on earth and to protect the oppressed from
oppressors. Rulers (ulu*1-emr) are of two kinds: a- prophets
who deliver
the commandments of God, b- sultans who implement
203
these divine rules on earth.
Starting with the Four Righteous Caliphs, Kadizade first
enumerates the different states in history such as the Umayyads,
the Abbasids, the Samanids, the Ayyubids and the Selpukids. As
for the Ottomans, their rule was characterized by justice. He
then describes the qualities of a ruler. The sovereign should be
a just and pious man. He should act in, full observance of the
serl'at. the Kur’an and the siinnet of the Prophet. The statesmen
in the
service of the sultan have the duty to apply the laws
! 204
(kahuns) in harmony with God’s commandments.
At all levels of rule, the vezirs. governors and the emirs
arrange their conduct according to the sultan. This becomes
evident from the principles "the people belong to the religion of
their ruler" and "the servant is of the same disposition as his
master." The people under the rule of a just sultan therefore

'205
find the right path and lead a prosperous life. In the
203 ~
Kadizade, Tac. fols. -3a-3b.
204
Ibid., fols. 4b-7a.
205
Kadizade, Tac. fols. 7a-7b.
04
introduction to his translation of Ibn Teymiye’s work, Kadizade
describes the reign of Murad IV as a period of safety and

206
security faaman-i biemn u 5man).
Kadizade*s translation of Ibn Teymiye’s work begins with an
emphasis on the need to obey the serT’at. the Kur’an and the
sunnet of the Prophet. The work then includes traditions of the
Prophet and Kur’anic verses which give advice both to rulers and
to the ruled. In a tradition, the Prophet said:
Allah is pleased to see you comply with three

rules: to worship Allah, {making none a partner
to Him); to hold fast by the covenant of Allah all
together and be not disunited; to be mutually
sincere with those to whom Allah has given
authority over you.207
The following verse was revealed about the administrators

208
of affairs (vulat-i umur): 1- Allah commands you to hand
back your trusts to their rightful owners. ' 2- And to pass
judgement upon man with fairness. 3- Noble is that to which
Ailah exhorts you. He hears all and observes 'ail. (4:58).
The following verse serves as a guide to the people ruled,

209
the ra* i w e t : 1- Believers, obey Allah and the Apostle and
those in authority among you. 2- Should you disagree about
206
Ibid., fol. 11a.
207
Ibid., fol. 17a. The English translation appears in
Farrukh, Ibn Taim i wa . 12.
208
By the word vulat. Kadizade means administrators who
are in a position of command in different branches of political
rule, i.e., the emirs, kadis. governors, etc. Kadizade, Tac.
fol. 17a.
209
Ibid., fols. 17a-17b.
95
anything refer it to Allah and the Apostle, if you truly believe
in Allah and the Last Day. This will in the end be better and
more just. (4:59).
Kadizade’s translation then treats the subject of handing
in the trusts to their appropriate owners. This is realized in
two spheres: a- the administration of provinces (vilayet), b-

210
the rules and regulations related to possessions (emval).
Obedience to the ruler at all levels of rule is equal to
obedience to God and His Prophet. It is very important therefore
that he who appoints a governor should select the most pious and
211
the most deserving person for this office.
In conferring offices, people should not be treated
preferentially. Those who make use*of patronage on this subject
will be treacherous to their trusts. There is evidence for this
in the Kur’anic verse "Believers, ' do not betray Allah and the
Apostle, nor kndwingly violate your trust." (8:27).
Traditions of the Prophet, too, indicate the necessity to
hand in the trusts to their rightful owners. Imam Buhari reports
a hadis from Ebu Hureyre according to which the Prophet said: "He
who entrusts a business or command to a person other than the

212
deserving one shall wait for doomsday."
210
For a discussion of the emval in Kadizade*s
translation see fols. 43a-53a.
211
212
Ibid., fil. 20a.
96
The work translated by Ka^xzade then discusses some
questions about appointing the right person to the right office.
The traits of strength and trustworthiness are rarely combined in
one person. Of the two candidates to a position, should the
stronger or the more reliable one be preferred? Here, the
criterion should be to acquire maximum profit and minimum harm
from the person employed. In the administration of warfare, for
instance, the strong emTr is preferred to the powerless one even

213
if he may be dissolute.
The later sections of the translation include such subjects
as the sultan’s possessions (emval-i su1 tanT). the rights (hukuk1
and punishments (hudud) according to Islamic law, bribery, el-
ear bi’l-ma'ruf ve’l-nehv fani*1 -munker. the holy war cihad).

214 ,
etc.
It is incumbent upon the ruler to respect the rights of
their subjects. The ra'iwet. in turn, have’ the duty to pay the
necessary tribute to the sultan even if he may be tyrannical.
Traditions of the Prophet confirm this obligation of the
subjects. According to a tradition quoted by Buhari and Muslim,
a group of people complained about the oppressive acts of the
governors to the Prophet. He said: "Give them their due for God
will question the rulers about the ra1iwet whose protection is
their duty." The ra'ivret. in turn, should not ask for more than
that which is their due as determined in the Kur’an and the
213
Ibid., fols. 37b-38a.
214
Ibid., fols. 43a-114a.
97 •
sunnet. This view is verified by quoting the verses "There are
some among them who speak ill of you concerning the distribution
of alms. If a share is given them, they are contented; but if
they receive nothing, they grow resentful (9:58); "Would that
they were satisfied with what Allah and His apostle has given
them, and would say: Allah is all-sufficient for us. He will
provide for us from His own abundance, and so will His apostle.
215
To Allah we will submit." (9:59).
In his translation, Kadizade describes three groups of
people with respect to obtaining and using possessions: 1 .
Plunderers 1vahhab ve nehhablar). 2. People who fear God, 3.
The itmmet.-i vasat. i.e., administrators of the affairs of the
religion of Isl-am (vulat-i umur-i dln-i MuhampdI and caliphs of
the Prophet. This last group maintain the possessions and impart
the benefits of the high and the low (havass ve’avam) in
accordance with the Kur’an and the sunnet. That God helps such
people is evident in the verse "Allah is with those who keep from
216
evil and do good works." (16:128).
Both the administrators and the ra1iwet who fulfill the
duty of el-emr bi’l-ma’ruf ve’l-nehv ’ani’l aunker in regard to
possessions belong to the iimmet.-f vasat. The application of this

217
duty is incumbent (vacib) upon the ruler. The ruler neglects
215
Ibid., fol. 44a.
216
217
98
this obligation if he permits what is unlawful in return for
receiving possessions
or gifts. Verses in the Kur’an remind
218
Muslims of this obligation:
"Thus Allah makes plain to you His revelations, so that you may
be rightly guided; and that you may grow into a nation that
will speak for righteousness, enjoin justice and forbid evil.
Such men shall surely triumph."(3:104).
"You are the noblest nation that has ever been raised up for
mankind. You enjoin justice and forbid evil. You believe in
Allah."(3:110).
The following section is on the necessity ■ for mutual
consultation in statecraft. An evidence for this need is the
verse "Therefore pardon them and implore Allah to forgive them.
Take counsel with them in the conduct of affairs: and when you
are resolved, put your trust in Allah" (3:159). On matters
concerning political rule, the sovereign should consult men of
sound judgement. If these people express an opinion in line with
the Qur’an, the sunnet and the icma’-i iimmet, the sultan should
219
accept it.
The conclusion (hatime)

U
of KadTzade’s
• •
book stresses the
importance of advice (tezkTr}in poiiticai rule* Admonition*
which is the essence of any state office, is useful for all
Muslims including those in a position of giving orders and

220
passing judgement.
218
Ibid., fols. 6 8 a-6 8 b.
219
Ibid., fol. 114b.
220
Ibid., fol.158a.
99
From our examination of his work, let us now try to detect
which aspects of Kadizade’s thought qualify him as a selefl or a
seri*at-minded reformer. Indeed, he chose to translate. Ibn
Teymiye’s work and his own original introduction is informed with
the same spirit as the text of Ibn Teymiye. Moreover, pi^Tzade
is persistent in following the principle of el-emr bi’l-ma’ruf
ve’l-nehv 'ar.i*1-aiinker. For the sake of fulfilling this
religious duty, the Kadizadelis did not hesitate to commit
violent acts which became visible during the second and third
stages of the movement as opposed to the first stage which was
seemingly peaceful. In Tacu*r-Resa*11. Kadizade emphasizes the
need for the rulers and the ruled to obey the serl’at. A just
sultan protects the ser’

-i serif and sees to it that secuiar laws
(kanuns) are In congruence with it. He refers to kanun only very

221
rarely, de-emphasizing its role in political rule.
221
Ibid., fols. 7a, 17a, 24a.
100
‘Abdulmecid Stvast Efendi*s Views on Political Rule
In a number of his works, ‘Abdulmecid Sivasi expresses his
views on statecraft. Let us now examine them here. In
Biza *atu’1-Va *iz~n. 'Abdulmecid .SivSsI first describes the
foundations of good morals. According to him, these are wisdom,
bravery and uprighteousness. In every human being there are
three souls (nefs) which correspond to these three qualities:
nefs-i melekl is the source cf intellectual faculties; nefs-
i sebu'T leads to such feelings as wrath, preseverance and
striving for high positions; nefs-i behran is the source of
desires and appetites. The moderation in these three souls leads
to the qualities of wisdom, bravery and uprighteousness,
respectively. Justice ensues from the"Assembly of these three
qualities. An excess or a deficiency in the three leads to

222
corruption.
I
Sivasi Efendi then mentions three kinds of
oppressiont zulum). The first one is sirk for which there is no
mercy. The second is a person’s oppression upon his own self.

223
The third is the oppression of people upon one another. By
nature, people have a tendency to seize worldly benefactions
without respecting each other’s rights. In order to prevent
disorder, God regulated the principles of equity in the serl'at. .
The ruler should apply these principles with power and sagacity.
222
Sivasi, Biza'at. fols. 25a-26b.
223
Ibid., fol. 25b.
101
'Abdulmecid Sivasi stresses the importance of a just
political rule in his other works as well. He points out that

• $ *
the farz-i 'avn is essentially of two kinds. The first is
obedience to God’s rule and abstinence from what is unlawful in
religion. The second is to show justice

compassion and to
224
people. Such behavior means obedience to God’s order.
A ruler mav do religious exercises such as staying awake

225
all night, fasting all day, reciting the evrad and giving
alms. If he does not render justice and check the behavior of
his officials, he will suffer as much torment as those officials
on doomsday. His religious exercises will be of no help to him. •
In Sivasi Efendi’s view, by his good deeds, a ruler
acquires as much merit in God’s sight as the merit which angels,
men and jinn have acquired since the creation of the world until
its end. Among such acts are ruling which justice, saving the
oppressed from the oppressor, dismissing a tyrant from a position

226
and appointing a good official instead.
Sivasi Efendi also underlines the necessity for a ruler in
society. The appointment of an imam is incumbent upon Muslims.
224
Sivasi, Nesavih. fols. 102a-103a. Farz-i 'avn: a
religious duty applicable to all Muslims. See Redhouse. 361.
225
Evrad: "Litanies.compounded of strung-together
adhkar or remembrance formulae." Trimingham, Sufi Orders. 301.
The evrad were recited as part of one’s training in a religious
order.
226
Sivasi, Nesayih, fol. 102b.
102
The followers of ehl-i sunnet as well as the Mu'tezilTs defend
this view. Without the imam, it would be impossible to realize
some essential things such as the protection'df the frontiers,
the equipment of the army and the well-being of the people

227
(re’ava and berav5).
In his work Biza'atu*l-Va'izln. SivasT Efendi refers to
some traditions concerning the necessity for a ruler. In a
tradition related by Ahmed, Muslim, BuharT, Ebu' Davud and TirmizI
or. the autcrity of Ibn 'Ose'*, the Prophet said:'
All of you are shepherds. All of you are

responsible for the people under your rule. The
imam is a guardian and he is responsible for his
ra'iwet. A man is a guardian who is answerable
for his ra'iwet. A woman is the guardian of her
husband’s home. In this respect, she, too, is
responsible. A - servant is the guardian of his
master’s possessions. He is responsible for them.
A man is the guardian of his father’s possessions.
He is therefore responsible for them. All of you
are shepherds and are responsible for your
ra 1 i w e t . 228
i
In another tradition relied by Muslim and reported by Ebu
Hureyre and Ebu Sa'Td, the Prophet said:
God will take seven groups under His protection on

that day when there is no protection but His.
These are: the just imam: a young man brought up
with acts of piety and worship; a person whose
heart is attached to the mosque; the two persons
whose mutual affection, meeting and separation
spring from the love of God; a man who refuses to
respond to the desires of a beautiful and rich
227
'Abdulmecid S-ivasT discusses this subject in his work
Purer...Gurer. fols. 22b-23b. By the word "imam" the author
designates the political ruler.
228
SivasT, Biza'at. fols. 26a-26b.
103
woman from fear of God; a person who gives alms so
secretly tlxat his left hand is unaware of what his
right hand gives; a person who sheds tears from
praising God (zikr) in seclusion. £29,
'Abdulmecid SivasT also describes the qualities of a good
ruler. In his view, the sultan of Muslims should be manifest.
He should not hide himself. (ve imam va'ni sultanu*1-Muslimin

230
zahir gerek. MahfT ve muhtefl gerefcmez). . It is an obligatory
act (farz) upon the sultan to know the minute details of the
events which take place in his domain. If he commends state
affairs to someone else’s care, he cannot escape from torment in'
the hereafter.
According to 'Abdulmecid SivasT, the mildness of the sultan
should not exceed his oppression. If the sultan is too mild, he
cannot prevent vices such as bribery and tyranny. As .a result of
this, the people suffer, treasury gets empty and the army becomes
weak. In order to prevent this, the sultan should send a number
of unprejudiced and sincerely, religious officials to the
provinces. They should check the behavior of the umera’. the
pasas. and the kadis. According to SivasT Efendi, the sultan is
the spirit of the world. With his circumspection, the world
becomes long-lived. He does not have to be a guiltless or a
superior person, however.
In his work Dureru’I-'Aka'id. 'Abdulmecid SivasT describes'
a good ruler in the section entitled "FI beyan-i ahvali’s-
229
Ibid., fols. 27a-27b.'
230 SivasT, Purer...Gurer. fol. 22b.
104
231
Selatin." SivasT Efendi notes that it is unlawful (haram) for
the sultan of Muslims to permit an act which is a bid*at. The

* » •
sultan should observe the creed of ehl-i sunnet. He should obey
the principles laid down in the Kur’an, the traditions of the
Prophet and the flkh books. He should be an intelligent adult
f;akil ve balig) endowed with the power of governing Isahib-i
sivaset i and the ability of managing the affairs of the
provinces. In conducting the affairs of the state, the sultan

232
should consult the learned men around him. SivasT Efendi J
quotes the verse "Take counsel with them in the conduct of
affairs..." (3:159) in order to support his views. Finally,
SivasT states that it is incumbent upon the ruler to observe the

233
principle of el-emr bi*1 -ma*ruf ve’l-nehv *ani*1 -munker.
From examining the aforementioned works cf SivasT Efendi,
one gets the portrait of a "good ruler." He is'an adult man who
is just and intelligent, but not necessarily guiltless and
superior. Some essential features of the sultan’s rule are
obedience to the Kur’an and the sunnet. abstention from bid*ats.
a just government, the appointment of the deserving officials to
administrative positions, a firm control over the provinces, and
mutual consultation with the wise and the learned people around
him.
231
SivasT, Purer, fols. 72a-72b.
232
Ibid., fol. 72a.
233
Ibid., fols. 73a-73b. We shall give a detailed
presentation of SivasT’s views on this subject in Part III.
105
Naturally, there are many parallels between the views of
Kadizade and SivasT concerning statecraft. After all, both are
SunnT Ottomans and products of the same educational system. In
their works, they both emphasize the importance of justice,
following the serT *at. the need for a good advisor in political
rule, abstinence from bidrats. etc. But when it came to identify
the bid'ats. namely which acts constituted-harmful innovations,
they would not necessarily be in agreement. As we shall see when
we discuss the subject of innovations, for example, according to
SivasT, building minarets is an innovation which is canonicallv

234
approved (miistehab bid'atl. The KadTzadelis, however,
objected to this practice and set out to demolish the minarets

235
until there remained only one in each mosque. To give another
exampie, Kadizade and SivasT agree that it is incumbent upon the
ruler to fulfill the religious duty of el-emr bi*1 -ma'ruf ve’l-
nehv :ani'I-munker. While The ptqilzadelis saw themselves
responsible for applying this principle albeit by force, the
SufTs were peaceful. Since these works on political rule are
written at the level of general principles, however, such
disagreements did not come to the fore. The dissensions came out
primarily in the sermons of SivasT and KadTzade which intended to
give practical as well as theoretical advice.
234
For a discussion of the bid*ats. see pp.260-266.
235
See p. 147.
106
CHAPTER IV
THE KADlZADELI MOVEMENT: THE SECOND STAGE
USTUVANI EFENDI vs. 'ABDlrLAHAD NURI EFENDI
(1060-61/I6 5 b - 1072/1661)
107
UstuvanI Efendi*s Leadership of_the Movement
After Kadizade Mehmed Efendi*s death in the year 1045/1635,
his followers presumably carried on with his views.
Unfortunately, there is no account of the 1£541zadelis in the
sources until the emergence of (fstuvSnl Efendi (1017/1608-
1072/1661). Let us first briefly examine the political and
economic events during the period of Sultan ibrahlm (1049/1640-
1058/1648) and the early years during the reign of Mehmed IV
(1058/1648-1099/1687). This was a time when the Kadlzadelis7
united under the leadership of Ustuvanr Mehmed Efendi.
During the reign of ibrahlm, the real authority belonged to
Cinci Hoca (d. 1058/1648), royal women and the agas in the
236
palace. Cinci goca, who was a former medrese student, claimed
to cure the insanity of ibrahlm by sorcery and managed to become
the sultan’s teacher. He is often charged with appointing
unqualified people as kadi and miiderris in return for bribery.
In this period, silk clothes, sable furs and ambergris all became
symbols of the extravagant life in the palace. Sultan Ibrahim’s
reign ended when the janissaries and the ’ulema* united against
the grand vezlr Hezarpare Ahmed Pasa and the sultan. In the end,
both of them were assasinated as well as Cinci Hoca, and the
seven-year-old Mehmed IV was enthroned (Receb 1058/August

237
1648).
236
Uzunqarsili, Osmanli Tarihi. 3, pt. 1:223-239, IA.
1950 ed., s.v. "ibrahlm,” by Tayyib Gokbilgin.
237
Uzunpar$ili, Osmanli Tarihi. 3, pt. 1:240-296; IA.
1955 ed., s.v. "Mehmed IV," by C.Baysun; El* s.v. "Husayn Efendi,
D.iind.ii Khod.ia. " by C.Orhonlu.
108
The first few years of his reign were marked by frequent
changes of grand vezlrs and the uprisings of artisans and
soldiers. In the year 1058/1648, the {acemi oglans rebelled-since
the advancement from the palace to the janissary corps Icifana)
did not occur on time. The sinahTs joined the rebels as well.
This incident, known as Yeni Cami ’ yak*asi or
Sultan Ahmed Cami’i Vak’asi. was finally suppressed by the
janissaries. In Ramazan 1061/August 1651, the representatives of
artisans and tradesmen appealed to the grand

vezlr and the
238
sevhiilislam complaining about debased coinage. When their
demands were not met, they came to the palace asking the sultan
to hold a council. In the end, by an imperial decree, they were
exempted from all taxes except for the ones levied "according to
the law in KanunI Suleyman’s time.” Tradesmen and artisans were
not satisfied, however. They also demanded that the grand vezlr
and the ocak aSas (leading officers of the janissary corps), who
I
were involved in the coining and circulation of debased akce. be
executed. As a precaution, Melek Ahmed Pasa (d. 1073/1662) was
deposed and Siyavus Pasa (d. 1066/1656) became grand vezir in his
place.
In the palace, there were two opposite factions: Murad
IV’s mother Kosem Sultan (a. 1061/1651) and the ocakagas vs.
Mehmed IV’s mother Turhan Sultan (d. 1094/1683) and her
supporters, namely, the black eunuchs, Bas Laia Suleyman Aga, the
sultan’s teacher Reyhan Aga and Musahip isma'il Aga. Kosem
238
Na'Ima, TarTh.
o 4:357-366.
109
Sultan’s aim was to depose Mehmed IV and to enthrone his brother
Sehzade Suleyman whose mother was known to be mad. In this way,
she would get rid of Turhan Sultan and continue to administer the
palace affairs. Her conspiracies,* however, did not work out as
she had planned. In the end, Kosem Sultan was

strangled by
239
Turhan Sultan’s supporters (Ramazan 1061/August 1651).
It was in such a period of political and social instability
that Ustiivanl Efendi and his followers became influential in
state affairs to a certain degree. Again, Na'Ima gives the most '
detailed account concerning the second stage of the movement. He
mentions Ustiivanl, the new leader of the Kadlzadelis, for the
first time under the events of the year 1061/1650-51. With the
emergence of Ustiivanl Efendi, the public began to hear the voice

240
of the Kadlzadelis again.
Under the leadership of Ustiivanl Mehmed Efendi, the
'Kadlzadeli-Sufl Contention’ changed its nature. Aggressive -acts
replaced the previous intellectual discussions during the time of
BirgivI and Kadizade. It was the followers of Ustuvanl who
corr>itted violent acts, while on the whole, the Sufis preferred
to respond by offering to discuss the controversial issues with
them.
239
A.N. Kurat, "The Reign of Mehmed IV, 1648-87," in
A History of the Ottoman Empire to 1730. ed. M.A. Cook (Cambridge
University Press, 1976), 162; Uzunparsili, Osmanli Tarihi. 3, pt.
1:254.
240
Na'ima, Tarih,5:53.
110
According to Na'Ima’s account, after Kadizade Mehmed
Efendi’s death, some preachers among his followers began to run
after fame and high positions. For this purpose, they accused
the performers of certain acts with blasphemy despite the lack of
evidence in reliable books. Am’

ong such acts were the melodic
, recitation of the Kur’an and of the call to prayer, invoking
blessings upon the Prophet and his companions during the Friday
sermons, chanting eulogies (na *1 1 to

Prophet, the and the
241
performance of Rega* ib. Kadir and Berat prayers.
The Kadlzadelis also believed that the performers of
innovations which emerged after the Prophet’s time, would be.
infidels. They described the sena1 and devran of the mystics as
dance trales). which was, in their view, illicit (haram) according

242
to the iciaa’.
Trusting the preachers, "a majority of the common people"

i
considered Sufis (such as the Halvetls and the Mevlevls) as
infidels. Moreover, they believed that those who entered Sufi
lodges would be infidels themselves.Believers were torn into

243
factions trying to bring each other into public disgrace.
241
Ibid., 6:222.
242
Theoretically, icing’ is the unanimous agreement of
the iimrnet on a regulation (hukumj ordered by God. Technically,
it is "the unanimous duetrine and opinion of the recognized
religious authorities at any given time." See El* s.v. "Id.ima’."
by M.Bernand.
243
.Va'Ima, TarTh. 6:222.
111
At this stage, of the movement, Usûvanl Efendi (d.
1072/1661) was the head of the Kadlzadelis, while the leader of
the §ufis was 'Abdulahad Nurl Efendi (d. 1061/1650). Let as now
examine their biographies and their works.
112
UstuvanI
. Mehmed
. Efendi
. (Mehmed b. Ahmed
. b. Mehmed
— b. Husevin
b. Suleyman el-ma'ruf bi’l UstuvanI el-Dimiskl)
Ustiivanl Mehmed Efendi was born in the year 1017/1608 in
Damascus. There, he studied" fikh. the rational sciences
(ma'kulat), hadTs, as well as learning Arabic. He then went to
C&irc cciitiziusd iixs studies thsrs• 5« rs»ur!isd to
homeland in the year 1039/1629-30. UstuvanI Efendi stayed in
Damascus for a while. He then set out for Anatolia (daru’1-nulk-
i Rum) by ship. According to 'UssakTzade, Mehmed Efendi left his
home for Istanbul because he had killed a man in his country and
245
feared the law of retaliation. MuhibbX, however, notes that'
Ustiivanl left his country because of a dispute with Seyh Necm el-
GazzT, but does not clarify what the subject of the argument
246
was. On his way, Mehmed Efendi was taken prisoner by non-
Muslims. Upon his release, he came to Istanbul and began to
preach in the Ayasofya Mosque. The sources do not give a date
for this important event. Na'Ima relates UstuvanI’s activities
under the events of the year 1061/1650-51 which could be the date
when he started his career of preaching in Istanbul. Since he

244
The main sources on Uspiivanl’s life are M.MuhibbI,
Hulasatu*1-Asar (Cairo, 1284/1867-68), 3:386-389; M. Sureyya,
Sicil. 4:173; §eyhT, Vekavi *. fol. 248a; 'UssakTzade, Zevl. fols.
283b-284a.
245
'Ussatflzade, Zevl. fol. 283b. 'Ussaklzade mentions
his source as the history of §arilj.u’1-Menarzade.
246
MuljibbI, Hulasatu *1-Asar. 3:387; §eyh NecmeddTn
Muhammed b. Muhassed ei-GazzX (d. 1CS1/1S51!: 'T scholar
of Damascus.
113
always leaned his back on a porphyry pillar (ustuvane), he came
247
to be known as "Ustuvanx."
UstuvanI Efendi quickly became a renowned preacher owing to
his full submission to the serl'at as well as his virtue and
knowledge. He also got married and changed his mezheb from
§afi'I to HanefT. Muhibbx does not mention whether these two
acts were related, nor does he say why CstuvanI changed his
248
mezheb. Probably, his purpose was to conform to the Hanefl
majority in Istanbul so that he could facilitate success in his
career. Ustiivanl’s next appointment was to the SultSn Ahmed
Mosque. Ustiivanl Mehmed Efendi performed the pilgrimage in the
vear 1063/1652. Upon his return to Istanbul in 1065/1654, he

249
began to give sermons in the Sultan Mehmed Mosque.
In 2.Tlhicce of the year 1066/September 1656, 'CstuvanI
Efendi was exiled to Cyprus because of his words which were found
to be conducive to disorder in society. Other leading; figures
among the kadlzadelis such as Turk Ahmed and Divine Mustafa
accompanied him. We shall dwell on the events leading to the
exile of the Kadlzadelis later in this chapter. After living in
Cyprus for a while, Csiiivanl was ordered to return to Damascus,
his native city. There, he began to teach in the Sellmiye

250
Medrese until he passed away in the year 1072/1661.
247
'Ussaklzade, Zevl. fol. 383b.
248
Muhibbx.
• Hulasatu’1-Asar.
’ U » “ * 387.
249
'Ussaklzade, Zevl. fols. 283b-284a.
250
Ibid., fol. 284a; §eyhl, Vekavi1. fol. 248a.
114
In the accounts -of 'U$?akTzade and §eyhl, Ostuvanl Efendi
appears as a person reputed for his knowledge and virtue. He was
"fearless of the reproaches by backbiters and swift in refraining

251
from what is forbidden."
251
'Ussaklzade, Zevl. fol. 284a; §eyhl, Vekavi *. fol.
248a.
UstuvanI Mghned Efendi*s Works
UstuvanI Efendi is known primarily by one risale consisting
of his sermons which were recorded and compiled by one of his

252 , .
students. There is no information in the sources, however, as
to who this student was. In it, Osûvanl Efendi discusses such
matters as performing the ritual worship (salat). fasting, giving
alms (zekat). pilgrimage, performing ablutions, polytheism
(sirk). etc. In certain manuscripts some of these subjects are
omitted.
252
In an article, Hiiseyin Yurdaydm examines the copy of
this work in Vienna National Library. See H. Yurdaydm,
"Ostuvani Eisalesi," A.U. ilahivat rakultesi Dergisi 10 (1962):
71-78. Various copies of UstuvanI Efendi’s work are to be found
in Siileymaniye Library under different headings: ‘Aka*id ve
‘ibadata *A* id Risale. MS. Yazma Bagi§lar 574; UstuvanI
Risalesi. MS. Dugumlu Baba 144/3; Kitab-i Feva’id-i Keblh. MS.
Fatih 2770; F e v a * idu’1 -A*mail ve Fera1 idii1 1-Le’5li. MS. M.Arif
-M.Murad 13; *ilmihal. MS. Yazma Bagx§lar 43; RisSletu *1-Mes *ele.
MS. Yazma Bagi?lar 363/1. Although they appear under different
names, these risales are different copies of the same work.
1 ■» e
i. j. «
UstuvanI Efendi supports his views by quoting from books
of flkh. tefslr and fetava. Some of them are Serh-i Mesank by
Ibn Melek, Multeka. Muhtasar Vikave Serhi. Kudurl Serhi. BirgivT
Mehmed Efendi’s Tarlkat-i Muhammprfiv», Medhal by Ibnii’l-âc,
Tefsir-i Kessaf. Fetava-i Kadi Han. Fetava.-i Bezzazive. Fetava-i

253 °
Ibn Tevmive.
253
Serh-i M e s a n k : the commentary by Ibn Melek
'izzeddln ‘AbdullatIf (d. 797/1394-95) on a work of Kazlyeddln
Hasan b. Mehmed es-§aganl (d. 650/1253) entitled Mesgnku* 1-
Envsr) Mviitwlc&i 2. wo si* IbrsbTs m i l c * » 956/1549} os
IJanefl fikh. The full title of the work is Multeka*1-Ebh5r
fl Furu'-i Hanefive: Vikave: a work by ibrahlm el-Halebl on
flkh: Kudurl Serhi: one of the commentaries on £udurl*s work
Muhtasar. a famous manual of ganefl law. This work attracted
many commentators, including Aipned b. Muhammed Ebu Na$r
el-BafdSdl (d. 474/1081); for-Kudurl see note 140; Medhal-i
Ser’-i Serif is a well-known work by Ibnu’i-Hac Ebu ’A&dullah
Muhammed b. Muhammed, a MalikI jurist of the fourteenth century;
for Tefsfr-i Kessaf see note 164; Fetava-i Fad~ Han: the
collection of fetava by Kadi Han Fahreddln el-IJasan b. Mansur
el-Ozcendl (d. 592/1196); Fet5v5-i Bezzazive: the collection of
fetava by Ibn Bezzaz HafizeddTn Muhammed b. Muhammed
(d. 827/1424).
'Abdiilahad NurT Efendi fSevh„ Evhadeddin
, EbT*1-Mekarim 2g4
'Abdiilahad NurT b. Mustafa SafavT b. tsmg'T1 b. EbT*1-Berekat)
'Abdiilahad NurT Efendi was born in Sivas in the year
1003/1594. His father SafayT Efendi, a kadi worthy of praise
according to ‘I
Ussaklzade,
* * was the son of Isma'Tl Efendi. The
sources note that isaa'Tl Efendi, known as "Sarih-i Multeka,"
owing to his commentary on Multeka. had the position of mufti in
Sivas. 'Abdiilahad Efendi’s mother Safa’Hatun was the sister of/
the famous Halvetl sevh ‘Abdiilmecld SivasT Efendi. The great
grandfather of the family EbT’1-Berekat Efendi was a HalvetT oTr

255 “
and the father of SemseddTn SivasT (d. 1006/1597).
'Abdiilahad Efendi received "spiritual mysteries" , from
SemseddTn SivasT when he was three years old. As a child, he
studied the Kur’an, grammar and syntax with his sevh and maternal
uncle 'AbdiilmecTd SivasT. When SivalsT Efendi was invited to
Istanbul by Mehmed III (1003/1595-1012/1603), he took his nephew
with him and saw to 'Abdiilahad’s education there. ‘Abdiilahad
Efendi completed
his studies in the rational ('aklT) and the
256
traditional (naklT) sciences.
254
For A. NurT Efendi’s biography, see M. NagmT,
Heaive, fols. 101b-109b. 'UssaifTzade, Zevl. fols. 276b-277b;
SeyhT, Vekavi‘. fols. 241a-243a; M.Tahir, OM, 1:121-122; M.
Siireyya, Sicil. 3:234; Ayvansarayl, Mesavih. fol.10b.
255
For SemseddTn SivasT’s biography, see M. NazmT,
Hedive. fols. 27a-38a.
256
Finally, 'Abdiilmecid Sivas! decided that his nephew was
now ready for initiation to the order. After having completed
some mystical exercises, 'Abdiilahad NurT Efendi was appointed to
the island of Lesbos as an officially ordained assistant to a
sevh (halife). In this island, he began to give sermons in the
mosque built by
Meijmed II, attracting many followers from
257
neighboring villages.
Through his sermons, 'Abdiilahad NurT Efendi’s reputation

/
spread outside the island. Seyhiilislam Yahya Efendi (d.
1053/1644) who was a sympathizer of 'Abdiilmecid SivasT, suggested
to SivasT Efendi that they invite NurT Efendi to Istanbul and

258
appoint him as sevh in the Mehmed Aga lodge. Accordingly,
'Abdiilmecid SivasT sent an invitation to 'Abdiilahad NurT Efendi
who came to Istanbul, accepted Yahya Efendi’s offer and took the
position of preacher in the Mehmed Aga lodge in the year
1033/1623-24. He gav-je sermons in this lodgeuntil the year
1041/1631. In that year, he was appointed to the Sultan Mehmed
Mosque in the place of BosnevT 'Osman Efendi (d. 1074/1664). On
the Friday following his appointment, he started his sermon with
the commentary on the Kur’an by KadT BeyzavT (d. 691/1291?).
Distinguished people such as chief judges of theempire and some
great muderrises were among his listeners. In the year
1051/1641-42, 'Abdiilahad NurT Efendi was appointed to the Sultan
BayezTd mosque again to replace BosnevT 'Osman Efendi. There, he
257
ibid., fols. 104b-105b.
258
Ibid., fol. 106a.
119
continued his sermdns
until the year 1057/1647 when he was
259
appointed to the Aya§ofya Mosque.
'Abdiilahad Efendi passed away in 1061/1650. According to
NazmI Efendi, "yen the death of this influential sevh. some of
the Kadlzadelis committed aggressive acts. Probably, they wanted
to take advantage of the weak position of the Sufis who had to
face the death of their sevh. The preacher Turk Ahmed broke the
hand rails of the private enclosure (maksure) in the Ayasofya
Mosque. On the same day, Seyh Ilyas of the Halvetls was reciting
prayers and the monotheist formula (tevhld-i serif) in the Sultan
Ahmed mosque following the afternoon prayer. CstuvanI Efendi
expelled Seyh Ilyas from the mosque by beating and striking him
260~
violently. ,
'Ussaklzade praises the qualities of Seyh 'Abdiilahad in the
following way: 'Abdulahad Efendi was renowned for his knowledge

V
in the zahir as well as the b a ^ m (exoteric as well as esoteric
sciences). He was remembered among the sevhs as a worthy and
honorable man. h'url Efendi was a learned and virtuous devotee
guarded from worldly concerns. His blessed breath was believed
to be influential upon the hearts of people (which implies that
259
M. NazmI, Hedive. fols. 106b-107a. As we see from
examining their lives, when 'Abdulahad Efendi was appointed as
preacher in the Sultan Mehmed Mosque in 1041/1631, Kadizade was
giving sermons in the Suleymaniye Mosque. Like Satflzade but in
a later period, ‘Abdiilahad Efendi too, preached in the imperial
mosques of Bayezld and SySsofya.
260
M. NazmI, Hedive. fol. 109b. Seyh Ilyas had a lodge
in the island of Chios and was esteemed by the dignitaries.
he functioned as a'spiritual healer) and his interpretation of
dreams would impress everyone. He also wrote poems under the

261
pseudonym "NurT.”
261
'U$$akrzade, Zevl. fol. 277a.
121
*Abdiilahad NurT Efendi* s Vnorks
Bursali Mehmed Tahir mentions 28 works by ‘Abdiilahad NurT
Efendi most of which are non-extant today. They are on such
subjects as visiting tombs, the life-of gxzir, the performance of
the supererogatory prayers in congregation and zikr. In this
thesis, I have referred to the following two works by ‘Abdiilahad
N'urT Efendi:
1. F T Hakki *d-Deverani *s-Suf ~ve
In this work, written mainly in Turkish but with some Arabic
sections,the author aims to prove that the devran (gyration)
and sema' (whirling) of the Sufis are different from raks
(dancing). He supports his views with Kur’anic verses and
traditions of the Prophet as well as by referring to
scholars such as Imam GazalT id. 505/111), CelaleddTn
es-Siiyutl (d. 911/1505) and CelaleddTn ed-Devvani (d.

262
908/1502-3).
262
FI-Hakki’d-Deverani *s-Suf Ive (n.p., n.d.). This work'
has been printed in an untitled collection of risales with no
information on the place of publication, name of publisher, or
the date of publication. A manuscript copy of this work is
entitled RisSle-i S*»m»*jye-i Nurive. Suleymaniye L., MS. Esad
Efendi 1434/4, fols. 35-44. CelSleddln ‘Abdurrahman b. Ebu Bekir
es-Siiytiti (d. 911/1505): an Egyptian writer of the Mamluk period
who wrote on a variety of subjects; for DewanT see note 175.
122
263
2. Te *drbu 1 1-Mutemerridxn
This work, which the author originally wrote in Arabic, was
later translated into Turkish by 'Abdulafcad Efendi himself.
It defends the view that the parents of the Prophet died as
believers, one of the topics of controversy between the
kadlzadelis and the Sufis which we shall investigate in
detail in Part III.
263
Te’dlbu’l-Mutemerridln. Suleymaniye L., MS. Esad
Efendi 3603. The Arabic original of this work is in Suleymaniye
L., MS. Fatih 5293/10.
123
The Expansion of the Kadl2adeli Movement
Let us now examine OstuvanT Efendi’s activities more
closely. According to Na’Ima, Ustiivanl Mehmed Efendi was an
orator and a brave man reputed with his virtues and observance of
the outward rules of the serf at. The sultan’s

• teacher Hoca
W
Eeyhan Aga benefited from his lessons in such sciences as fikh.
Arabic, the recitation of the Kur’an and literary style
tkitabet). According to Na’Ima, Reyhan Aga was "obdurate" in his

)
inclination towards "bigotry." He honored UstuvanI and gave him
presents. In this way, Meipned Efendi became famous in the

264
Enderun and the Birun. He drew supporters from the sweet-
makers (heivacis) and gardeners 1 bSstancis) in the palace as well
as the educated officials in the enderun-i humavun (the sultan’s
private apartments). His renown spread among the ailman-i hassa
(pages in' the palace) and agavan- 1 daru’s-sa’ade (chief black

265
eunuchs). Both of these groups were unanimously attached to
him. Finally, a pulpit was put in the Has Oda contrary to the
law, andhe began to preach there with the title of

266
padisah sevhi.
264 2 2
See EX, s.v. "Enderun," by V.J. Parry and El, s.v.
"BIrun," by B. Lewis. BIrun was the "outside" service (sections
and household) of the palace as opposed to Enderun. the "inside”
service.
265 2
See El, s.v. "Agha." bv H. Bowen.
266
Na'Ima, Tarlh. 5:53-54. Has Oda was the chamber in
the Enderun established during the reign of Mehmed II. The
officials here were in the private service of the sultan. As it
appears from reading Na'Ima, until the time of UstuvanI, giving
sermons in the Has Oda was not part of the Ottoman custom. See
also "Hasoda," in Midhat Sertoglu, Osmanli Tarih Lugati
(Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1986), 142.
124
Na'Ima enumerates some of the immediate followers of
Ustiivanl. One of them was §eyh Veil Efendi, the councillor
(mustesar) of the ocak agas and the renowned preacher of the
Sultan Mehmed Mosque. Seyh Veil was a man of the world who
intermingled with common people. Na'Ima also mentions him as
Veil Aga and Veil Pasa. Another prominent figure was Hur§Id, the
son of a cavus. who had been preacher fcr a long time and gained
some fame by the name of Cavuszade. There were also Kose Mehmed
267
and Ma'cuncu Hamza whom Na'Ima describes as an extremely
opulent man; Seyh 'Osman, the teacher of the pages in the palace
and preacher in the Suleymaniye Mosque; Qelebi Seyh who was the
son of the sevh of Erdebill tekke: and ^Juseyin Efendi, preacher
in Orta Cami'i. These men supported UstuvanI Efendi, reproaching

268
the Sufis in their sermons sometimes in a coarse manner.
Apart from the above-mentioned followers of UstuvanI, there
was also another group whose real purpose was to cause upheaval
in society. According to Na'Ima, among these were "meddlesome
and jobless people" who acted as if they were sympathizers of the
Sufis (JarTk-i Suflve muhiblerinden gecinen bazi issiz

269
fodullar. ..) as well as Kaftit Emlni Hiiseyin, Zihelrci
267
Ma'cuncu: maker or seller of medicated taffy.
Redhouse. 716.
268
Na'Ima, Tarih. 5:54.
269
From reading Na'Ima, it appears that these people
pretended to be §ufl sympathizers in order to approach the
mystics and learn from them what they have to say about the
Kadlzadelis. Ibid., 5:55.
125
Suleyman, and Arab slaves subjected to beating"
270
(madrub 'Arab *ubedalar). These "quarrelsome men" had a very
limited knowledge of Islam and its requirements. They attended
the gatherings and pulpits of the pUIzadelis and the Sufis.
Playing both sides, they carried the accusations and the
"contemptuous" words
which the two opposite factions used for
271
each other. Their purpose was to cause disorder.
Drawing support from their followers, the ilaÎzadelis
began to act with increasing boldness. Na'Ima relates an 7
anecdote which indicates that the K34Izadelis did not refrain
from criticizing even the highest officials of religion. This
incident precedes the emergence of UstuvanI as the leader of the
KSdizadelis. Yatjya Efendi, the sevhulislam of the time, had
composed a poem, the first couplet of which is well-known:
"In the mosque let hypocrites indulge in hypocrisy

Come you to the tavern where you’ll neither sham
nor shammer see." 272
Cavuszade addressed the listeners from the pulpit saying
that whoever among the Muslims read this couplet of Yahya Efendi
would become an infidel. .In his view, agreeing to the meaning of
this couplet was equivalent to an act of infidelity.
270
Kagit Emlni: an official in charge of the supply and
distribution of paper and writing materials to be used in state
offices. Sertoglu, Osmanli Tarih Lugati. 167; Zihelrci: maker •
of archer’s thumbstalls. Redhouse. 1285.
271
Na'Ima, Tarih, 5:55.
272 °
N. Menemencioflu and Fahir iz, eds. The Penguin Book
of Turkish Verse (Bungay, Suffolk: Penguin Books, 1978), 100.
126
Those present at the mosque were perplexed at the
audaciousness of the preacher which implied an accusation of the
seyhulislam with blasphemy. Na'ima himself points out that
Beyhiilislam Yahya Efendi was a quick-witted man of profound
knowledge, great dignity and patience. He would take great care
in the punishment of those who talked in public in a critical
. He would sicw) hewsvort 1 st hisisslf ks dis»urbsd Jjy such
acts. Since the sevhiilislam did not reprimand the Kadlzadelis
immediately, they continued to give even more aggressive

273 '
sermons.
In a passage which indicates the later generations’,
awareness of the fact that the origin of the Kadlzadeli movement
goes back to BirgivT Mehmed Efendi, Na'Ima relates that once
Seyhulislam YahyaEfendi told 'ismetl Efendi, a descendant of
BirgivI, reproachfully:
"'i?metl, do you know what seeds of strife your grandfather sowed

! 274
in this world under the appearance of righteousness"?
Let us now refer to an incident which indicates the
outlook of the $adlzadelis vis a vis the bid'ats. Na'Ima records

275
this incident under the events of the year 1066/1655-56.
Once, "a witty fellow" who was hesitant about the proper course
of behavior asked the preacher Turk Ahmed: "In your view, one
273
Na'ima, Tarih. 5:55.
274 ^
Ibid., 5:55-56.
275
Ibid., 6:226-227; Uzunparsili, Osmanli Tarihi. 3,
pt.l: 365-366.
127
must annul good innovations (bid*at-i hasene) along with all evil
acts. Wearing trousers is an act of bidtat. Will you, then,
abolish this practice as well"? "Yes," answered Turk AJjnted, "Let

276
the people use izar and nestemal." The man asked again:
"Using spoons is also an innovation. What will you do about it"?
Turk Ahmed replied: "We abolish that as well. Let the people
eat by their hands. This is not pitch (-zifir). What is wrong if
their hands get smeared by food"? The man told the preacher in
astonishment: "You want to turn everybody into naked Arabs in
the desert." Someone else who was listening to the conversation7
asked Turk Ahmed: "My lord, when the spoons are forbidden what
will the SDoon-makers do"? The preacher replied:

"Let them earn
277
their livelihood by making misvak and rosary-beads instead."
Apparently, N a T m a ’s purpose in relating the above-
mentioned story is to demonstrate the uncompromising attitude of
the Kadlzadelis regarding the bid'ats. Indeed, Turk Ahmed
rejected the classification of good and bad innovations, opposing
all novelties introduced after the time of the Prophet. It was
primarily this opposition which moulded the aggressive acts of
the Kadizade!is against the Sufis during the second and third
stages of the movement.
276
izar: a waist-wrapper extending like a petticoat all
round the body; ©external: a large bath towel, a waist cloth.
Redhouse. 569, 930.
277
Misvak: a stick of wood beaten into fibers at one
end and used as a toothbrush. Redhouse. 781. It is recommended
for oral hygiene in Prophetic traditions.
128
The Aggressive Acts of the Kadlzadelis Against the Sufis
As the reputation of OstuvanT and his followers increased,
and as they drew supporters from among the gardeners, the agas in
the harem and notables of the janissary corps, the Kadlzadelis
felt stronger and began their attacks on the Sufis.
Seyhulislam Baha’i Efendi (d.1064/1654) had once issued a

278
fetva for the permissibility of tobacco. According to Na'ima,
in his fetva. he stated that as long as there is no definite'"
evidence for the illegality of tobacco it should be considered
legal since ibahe (rendering lawful) is essential in this

279
matter. The Kadlzadelis
• became hostile to the sevhiilislam
^ ■* 1 due
to this decision. They assembled in secret gatherings with the
purpose of taking vengeance on Baha’i Efendi. Their ultimate
purpose was to attack the lodges of dervishes.
In the year 1061/1650-51, the Ka41zadelis managed to! obtain
a decree (ferman) from Melek Ahmed Pasa, the grand vezlr of the
time. Accordingly, they attacked the Halvetl lodge near
Demirkani dismissing the dervishes who were performing the

280
devran. After this incident, they decided to make assaults
upon other lodges as well. The news spread that the Kadlzadelis
278
For Baha’i Efendi’s biography, see A. Rif'at.Davha.
55-57. His terms of office were between 1059/1649-1061/1651 and
1062/1652-1064/1654.
27 9
Na'ima, TSrlh, 5:62-63.
280 °
Ibid., 5:56. Na'ima does not give the content of the
decree which the KacJIzadelis obtained from Melek Ahmed Pasa. It
is clear, however, that the Pasa was lenient towards the'
Kadlzadelis in permitting their aggressive acts against the §uf!s.
129
were going to attack Ekmel Tekkesi on a special night which was
281
usually spent with religious exercises. §amsoncuba$i 'Omer
Aga was a follower of Mifirli 'Omer Efendi (a. 1068/1658) who was
282
the sevh of this lodge. When 'Omer Aga heard the decision of
the Kadizadelis, he arrived with fifteen sworded footmen
(cukadar) and protected the lodge. Moreover, he took off his
furcc&t &nci sntsrsd circls of zikri iioncs ths E&dizSdslis
were not able to disturb the dervishes.
Celebi Kethuda Bey, the renowned kul kethiidasi, was also a'
283
disciple of 'Seyh Omer. He took an order from the same grand
vezfr. Accordingly, it would be forbidden to disturb the devran.
zikr and rituals of the Sufis.

The previous order which the
284
Kadizadelis had obtained was therefore cancelled.
For a while, the followers of Cstiivanl remained silent.
They assembled secretly in the house of one Bodur Htiseyin who had
been banished from the janissary corps. They planned new acts of
hostility against the Sufis. First of all, depending on the
fetvas of Kemal Pasazade (d. 940/1534) and Ebussu'ud Efendi Id.
982/1574) against rafr^ and devr. the Kadizadelis managed to
281
tryva gecesi: the night preceding Friday or Monday.
Redhouse, 522. Ekmel Tekkesi: a Halvet! lodge in Fatih built by
Seylj Suleyman Ekmeleddln who lived~at the end of the 15th and the
beginning of the 16th century. See Istanbul Ansiklooedisi. 1968
ed., s.v. "Ekmel Tekkesi," by Hakki Gokturk.
282
Samsoncubasi: an' officer of high rank who headed the
71st orta of the janissary corps. Pakalm, Sozluk. 3:112-113.
283
Kul kethiidasi: one of the high rank officials of the
janissary corps, also known as ocak kethiidasi or kethuda bev.
Pakalm, Sozluk. 2:317-319. " °
284
Na'Ima, TarTh.
U
5:56.
130
obtain a fetva from Seyhulislam 3aha:x Efendi on -the same i
285
subject. Thereafter, they assembled under the leadership of
OstuvanI and wrote a note to Seyh 'Abdulkerlm Celebi (d.
1106/1694) who was a disciple of SivSsT Efendi. In the note,
Ustuvanl addressed 'Abdiilkerfm Celebi in this way:
You perform the rak^ and devran. It is a

religious requirement to forbid these acts. We
shall attack your lodge in order to kill you and
your followers. We shall also dig out the
foundations of your lodge a few arsms and throw
the rubble into the sea. It is permissible to
perform the ritual worship only when the building
is at that level. 286 '
Seyh 'Abdiilkerlm Celebi, in turn, took this note to the
sevhulislam. Upon reading it, Baha’i Efendi got very furious.
He sent a dispatch by way of summons, adding that if he refused
to come, it would be to his harm. Ustuvani, in turn, appealed to

/
the grand vezlr and requested his intercession so that the
sevhulislam forgive him. Owing to the courteous behavior of the
service staff in the palace, the grand vezlr accepted this offer.
I
He sent the re’Tsulkiittab to BahS’I Efendi in order that he
forgive UstiivanT. The sevhiil islam addressed the re* Tsulkuttab in
a reprimanding manner and said:
285
There are numerous books of fetava by Kemal Pagazade.
For example, Fetava. Suleymaniye L., MS. Ayasofya E 2TQ5;
Fetava i-Raks. MS. Esad Efendi 696/3. For Ebussu'ud Efendi’s
fetvas, see Ertugrul Duzdag, ed., Sevhulialam Ehussuud Efendi
Fetvalan Xsigmria 16.Asir Turk Havati. (Istanbul: Enderun
Kitabevi, 1972). Let us, for example, view the following fetva •
by Ebussu'ud Efendi:
Question (Mes’ele). Zeyd performs the ritual worship (namaz) in
congregation. The prayer leader 'Amr belongs to those §ufls who
perform the devran and the zikr. In this case, should Zeyd
perform the ritual worship again?
Answer (el-cevab). Yes, if those §ufls consider raks as
canonically lawful (helal).
286
Na'Ima, Tarih.
"— w 5:57.
131
Look Efendi. in the Ottoman State people still
take bribes, positions are sold by auction and
unlawful deeds take place. In such a situation,
why should it be necessary to protect such
mischief-makers who deserve to be hanged? The
devran of the Sufis and the opposition of the
fukaha* is an old story. I, too, gave a fetva for
the impermissibility of rak$ according to the
outward rules of the serl'at. In this way, I have
consented with my predecessors. It is certain,
however, that in the past many exalted sultans,
vezlrs and sevhulislams who are wiser than I, have
given such fetvas. Their purpose was the
protection of the state and obedience to the rules
of the serl'at outwardly. None of them tried to
forbid the acts of the §ufls by violence. The
sultan is only a ten-year-old innocent child. 287
Why is it so important to surround him with a
group of ill-tempered trouble-makers? In the end,
he will be the one to suffer from the malediction
of the Sufis. Either that Ustuvanl is punished or
I will shave his beard and put it in the fur. 288
Baha’i Efendi then gave the re*Tsulkuttab the note which
Ustuvanl sent to Seyh 'Abdulkerlm. The re’Istilkuttab apologized
and undertook to do as the sevhulislam said. This time, Baha’i
Efendi charged Es'ad Efendi (d. 1066/1656), the kadi of Istanbul,
with the duty of sumonning the Kadizadelis one by one. He would
prevent them from speaking about the raks and devran of the
Sufis.
The Kadizadelis followed this advice to some degree, but it
is known that at least one of them did not. A man by the name of
Deli Seyh, a protege of the ocak aftas. continued his sermons
against the Sufis. He claimed that those who performed the raks
and zikr were innovators and those who recited the confession of
287
Mei^med IV.
288
Na'Ima, Tarlh. 5:57-58. By these words, Baha’i
Efendi probably means that he would punish Ustuvanl by expelling
him from his position.
132
289
faith ke1 ime-i sahadet) melodically were infidels.
In the meantime, some notables of religious orders set out
to answer the Kadizadelis. One of them was Zakirzade Efendi (d.
1068/1657), a disciple of §eyh Uskudarl Mahmud Efendi (d.

290
1037/1628). Zakirzade gave sermons in the Sultan Mehmed
Mosque on Tuesdays. During one of these, he said:
An insolent man by the name of Cavusoglu said some

nonsensical things. The highly esteemed teachers
and men of religion have recommended the devran
and zikr as the fundamentals of religious orders.
'Those who unjustly blame Muslims with blasphemy '
are unbelievers themselves.’291
For a while, the power of the Kadizadelis was weakened. At
that time, Erdebilizade ?eyh, (d. 1080/1669), who had firm
believers among the public, had arrived from pilgrimage. He

/
declared that he devoted himself to respond to anybody on matters
concerning the dances of the §ufls. Ustuvanl, who knew that
Erdebilizade was a highly worthy man, answered the latter by a

I
note saying: "He (Erdebilizade) is a saintly mystic. Our words
are directed to those §ufls who run after amusement

292
(lehv ve heva). not to him."
289
Ibid., 5:58.
290
Zakirzade §ey{j 'Abdullah b. 'Osman’s father was the
zakirbasi of §eyh Mahmud Huda’I Efendi. For .he biography of
Zakirzade, see 5eyhl, Vekavi'. fol. 246b. F<r §eyh Mahmud
Efendi’s biography, see Ibid., 35a-35b.
291
Na'Ima, Tarlh. 5:58-59. The last sentence in this
quotation is a tradition of the Prophet related on the authority
of 'Abdullah b. 'Omer.
292
Ibid.,5:59.
133
293
The Refutation of Serh-i farIbat
As it had been usually the case, the Sufis responded to the
attacks of the KadlzSdelis at the level ofintellectual
argumentation. Birgivi Mehmed Efendi*s Tarlkat-i Mnhammedive was
a book read by a majority of the Kadizadelis. A man called Molla
Meljmed the Kurd(d. 1084/1673), after coming to Istanbul and
becoming attached to the valide kethiidasi Arslan Aga who had
connections with Halvetlsevhs. wrote a commentary with the

294 '
purpose of refuting Birgivi’s book. Through his protector,
Kurd Molla himself had established close affiliations with the
Sufis, while he started to give theological lectures in the
Suleymaniye Mosque.
In his work, Kurd Mehmed accused Birgivi of having quoted
weak and fabricated (mevzu*) traditions in Tarlkat-i Muhammeriir>.
Besides this criticism, from N'a'Tma’s account, we can detect two

I
other themes in Kurd Mehmed*s book: a commentary on verse 5:20,
295
and the revelation of mysteries to the Sufis (kesf ve suhud).
293
Ibid., 5:264-269. Na'Ima relates this incident under
the events of the year 1063/1852-53. Also see Katib Celebi,
Fezleke. 2:383.
294
Valide kethudasi: a dignitary in charge of the
affairs of the queen mother related to the exterior of the
palace. Pakalm, SOzliik. 3:582.
295
Kesf: revelation of mysteries to a saint; Suhud: the
miraculous visibility of all things to a saint. Redhouse. 645,
1068.
134
These were matters
which could outwardly lend themselves to
296
forced interpretation (te'vll). The Kur'anic verse which Kurd
Mehmed chose to interpret said: "It is a revelation from Him who
has created the earth and the lofty heavens, the Merciful who
sits enthroned on high." As we shall see, 6 eygiilislam BahS’T
Efendi would later reprimand Kurd Mehmed for choosing this
particular verse which is one of the ambigicus and parabolic
verses in the Kur’an (muteTabihat). Kurd Molla’s choice perhaps
reflects his desire to stimulate a discussion with th^
KaJIzadelis on this subject. The Kadizadelis, however,
interpretedthis verse literally and demanded that anybody who
interpreted itotherwise be executed. Indeed, this particular
controversy is reminiscent of the dispute between Ka4 i2^ e and
SivasT on the 'praise of God’ (tesblh) which we have already
dealt with. While Kadizade understood verse 17:44 according to
its outward meaning, SivasI was able to transcend

verbal its
297
interpretation with his knowledge of tefslr and of mysticism.
Besides Kurd Mehmed, a man by the name of Tatar Imam, the
imam of Meljmed Aga Mosque and a good friend of Seyh 'Abdiilahad,
wrote a commentary on Birgivl’s book. Having completed his work,
296
Na'Ima, Tarlt}. 5:265. For Kurd Mehmed^s biography see
M.Tahir, OM, 2:7. Mehmed AIT'Aynl mentions a manuscript copy of
Kurd Mehmed’s commentary in Suleymaniye L., MS. Haci Besir Aga
362. He then summarizes the ideas of Birgivi and Kurd Meijmed on
raks. M. ‘A l l ‘Aynl, Turk Ahlakciiari (Istanbul: Marifet Basimevi,
1939), 1:116-122. In his commentary, Kurd Mehmed treats subjects
such as the necessity to obey the Kur’an tke Sunnet.
abstention from bid'ats. matters related to asceticism, etc.
297
See pp. 84-90.
135
which attempts to demonstrate the mevzu* traditions in Birgivi*s
Tarlkat-i Muhammedive. Tatar Imam presented it to §eyhulislam Ebu

298
Sa'Id Efendi (d. 1072/1662) who replaced Yahya Efendi.
Na'Ima relates that 'l§meti Efendi who was from Birgivi’s family
came to visit the sevhulislam soon thereafter and was shown Tatar
Imam’s book. Not knowing anything about the contents of this
work, 'ifmet! opened a page where he saw a tradition of the

299
Prophet. He verified its meaning and said to the sevhiil
VJ
islam;
“
"My lord, they have recorded this tradition as mevzu'." Upon Eby
Sa'Id Efendi’s suggestion, 'ismetl went on to investigate Tatar
Imam’s work only to see that it recorded all of the traditions
quoted in TarTkat-i Muhammedive as weak and, in fact, aimed to
refute that work. 'i§metl closed Tatar Imam’s work in anger and
discomfort since he found out that his grandfather has been

wronged.
The Halvetl sevhs and their educated followers duplicated
the works of Tatar Imam and Kurd Molla promulgating them among
the people. Gradually, certain preachers among the Kadizadelis
such as Sahaf *ivaz and Deli Ahmedoglu found these copies and
showed them to their supporters, while Cstuvanl and his followers
started to formulate their own criticisms to Kurd Molla’s
commentary on verse 5:20. The Kadizadelis directed their
criticism particularly to Kurd Molla’s commentary on the last
298
For the biography of Es'ad Efendizade Ebu Sa'Id Efendi
see A. Rif'at, Davha. 50-52.
299
"The wonder ,has spoiled the deed just as the salt has
spoiled honey."
136
sentence of the verse ("...the Merciful who sits enthroned on
high”) in which they claimed, the author communicated the ;
personification of God (tecsTm). In their view, Kurd Molla’s
interpretation was contrary to the belief of the ehl-i sunnet.

300
The commentator therefore deserved to be killed. After
communicating their opinion to a group of the enderun-i humavun
as well as goca Reyljan Aga and his peers, the Kadizadelis arrived
at the presence of §eyhiilislam Baha’i Efendi, who had been
reinstated, and complained about Molla Mehmed’s risale. saying:^
"This man has attributed a position to God in his commentary.
Why do you toierate him? His execution is a religious duty. You
issue a fetva and we shall murder him." Reyhan Aga and his
supporters, too, sent notes to Baha’i Efendi in which they
insisted upon their claims. As for the sevhulislam. his sentence
on Kurd Molla was not as harsh: "Those who venture into matters
which are in conflict with the outward observances of the serl'at
deserve to be punished. Execution would be an unwise solution.
Let us exile him.”

While Kurd Molla was hiding himself out of
301
fear, the Kadizadelis consented to this less strict penalty.
After the gathering of the Kacjlzadelis dispersed, Kurd
Molla took his risale with him, went to the sevhul

■ w
isTam. kissed
his hand and begged his pardon. Kurd Molla then defended himself
300
Na'Ima, Tarlh, 265-266.
301
Ibid., 5:266-267.
137
saying: "My lord,- in writing the commentary on that Kur’anic
verse,I made use of the Tefstr-i Keblr and the words of such :
greatmen as Imam
Fahr, Gazall, Ragib and Necm. Why do I
302
deserve to be killed"? By way of reproach, Baha'i Efendi told
Kiird Mehmed:
0 Molla! Weren’t you able to find a verse

pertaining to a safer subject' in the Kur’an? Why
did you choose to interpret one of the ambigious
verses (mutesabihat) which is a difficult subject?
True, great men have quoted these words in their
books. Profound matters which are based on kesf
and suhud however, are related to mystical /
pleasures. They concern the erbab-i hal. i.e.,
the Sufis. It is not permissible for the ’ulema'
to deal with such questions. 303
In the end, Molla Mehmed pleaded guilty and requested the
serhulislam’s pardon who readily saved him from the demands of
execution, gave him 20 floris and sent him away.
Feeling victorious after the exile sentence was passed on
Kurd Molla, the £a<£Xzadelis now applied to the sevhulislam for
the execution of Tatar Imam who had also refuted Birgivi’s book.
Baha’i Efendi responded to the persistent demands of the
Kadizadelis by saying: "Let us see his work and decide whether
there is something which necessitates his execution or

304
punishment."
302
Fafcreddln Muhammed b. 'Omer er-RazI (d. 606/1209): the
author of a well-known commentary on the various works
on mysticism and kelam: Ebu’l-Kasim §iiseyin a. Muhammad Ragib ei-
I§fahanT (d. 501/1108) wrote a work entitled Miifredatii ’1-Elf5zi ’1
-Kur’an: Necmeddln 'Omer b. Muhammed en-Nesefl (d. 537/1142):
the author of a Kur’anic commentary entitled Ekmelu’1-Etval.
303
Na'Ima, TSrlh, 5:267.
304 °
Ibid., 5:267-268.
133
After much commotion, the Kadizadelis went away. Tatar
Imam petitioned to the sevhulislam. saying:
I have heard that the followers of KSgTzSde

disturbed my master. If, according to their will,
execution is absolutely necessary, death is God’s
decree. I am not Kurd Molla; therefore I would
not hide or run away. T have in my possession the
books of tradition which concern the matter of
dispute. Let the Kadizadelis first come to the
Sultan MeJjmed Mosque and silence me by their
arguments. Afterwards, I will obey what the
serl’at decrees. 305
Tatar Imam then loaded a mule with his books of tradition/
and other related books. He arrived at the Sultan Mehmed Mosque
and challenged the K^4lzadelis. Plenty of people assembled there
as listeners. Tatar Imam sent a message to the Kadizadelis and
invited them for a discussion. None of them made an appearance
for fear of public disgrace. •• Following

this incident, the
306
prestige of the Kadizadelis was greatly damaged.
According to Katib Celebi, had the Kadizadelis confronted

I
Tatar Imam in the discussion, it would have been proven that the
traditions in Birgivi’s book were weak. Therefore, the disavowal
of Tarlkat-i Muhammedive would have been necessary. In Katib
Celebi’s view, the Kadizadelis avoided open discussion for this

307
reason. Instead, they appealed to the harem-i humavun and
said:
305
Ibid. 5:263.
306
Ibid., 5:268.
307
Katib Celebi, Fezleke. 2:383.
139
It is not an auspicious sign to refute the work of
such a pious and virtuous man as Birgivi during
the reign of our sultan. This act is even more
improper when one considers the fact that the imgm
is not even at the level of being Birgivi’s
student in asceticism and intellectual capacity.
Let us suppose that there are weak and mevzu ’
traditions in this book. There is no harm in
inserting such traditions for the purpose of good
morals and for clarifying the complicated
passages. The aim here is to encourage or.
frighten the people. It is incumbent upon the
sultan to cleanse that agreeable book from the
dust of censure. In this way, he will protect the
honor of the serl’at and defend the learned and
pious men from the piercing t ague of opposers. 308
Eventually, the Kadizadelis succeeded in influencing the
palace. The sultan ordered Baha’i Efendi to refute the work of
Tatar Imam. In Safer 1063/January 1653, the leading ’ulema* and
Tatar Imam came to the presence of the sevhulislam. At the .end
of the discussion, Tatar Imam withdrew his objections " to
TarTkat-i Muhammedive which he had expressed in his commentary.
The present representatives of the 'ulema* put their signatures

i
on the work in order to demonstrate its'disavowal. They also
warned Tatar Imam that henceforth he would be strictly punished
if he attempted to censure the works of great men among his

309
predecessors.
Among Ottoman historians who treat the "refutation of
Serh-i Tarlkat." Na’Ima refers to both Tatar Imam and Kurd
Mehmed. Katib Celebi and ’Abdl Pasa, however, only refer to Kurd
Molla*s commentary. The latter claims to have seen Kurd Molla’s
308
Na’Ima, Tarlh, 5:268.
309 "
Ibid., 5:268-269.
140
work. In his view, it was necessary to execute its author to set
310
an example for those who deviated from the correct path. The
Molla was saved, however, by the reaffirmation of his faith.
'AbdT Pa$a notes that Kurd Mehmed was then exiled and settled in
Bursa.
Na'iina mentions a third person who wrote a refutation of
Birgivi:s work in addition to Kurd Mehmed and Tatar Imam. He
states that the Halvetl seyh 'Abdiilahad Nurl Efendi encouraged
the educated men among his supporters to criticize TarTkat-
i Muhammedive. Accordingly, one of his followers set out to
refute Birgivi’s book by searching the origins of the traditions
quoted in it,
but he fell into great trouble since he did not
311
have the proper training for this difficult task.
It is significant that the sevhulislam. as the highest
religious dignitary, eventually ordered the punishment of Kurd
Mehmed and Tatar Imam even though he does not seem to have been
sympathetic to the Kadizadelis. This act probably indicates that
the Ottoman *ulema* felt the need to keep a balance between the
Kadizadelis and their opponents, namely, the sympathizers of the
Halvetl Sufi sevhs.
310
In 'Abdl Pass’s words: "Hakka ki au'ellifi plan habis.
i2 har ve israr ettigj su’-i i*tikad-i dalalet mu'tldina gore,
mazhar-i simslr-i sivaset ve emsal-i firka-i dalle ber mucib-i
’ibret olmak lazxm idi. Lakih tecdld-i Imanla halas oldu."
'Abdl Pasa, Vek5v» , fol. 23a.
311
Na’Ima, Tarlh.
"w
5:265-266.
141
The Events Leading to the Suppression of the Movement
As we have seen, in the beginning of Mehmed IV’s reign, the
queen mother and the aSas in the palace administered state
affairs. Through their affiliations with these groups, the
Kadizadelis grew powerful. According to Na'Ima, the Kadizadelis
managed to acquire worldly opulence under the guise of piety.
They influenced usurers, stockpilers and "hypocrites” among the
ehl-i suk (artisans and tradesmen) who carried out their affairs
/
with the pasas and the kadis smoothly through the mediation and
patronage of the Kadizadelis. The latter taught such men tricks
which would help them run their business related to the evkaf
(endowments) and the emlak (property). The Ifaiijxzadelis, in turn,
resorted to these intermediaries for procuring the necessities
such as melbusat (garments), mefrusat) (furniture, carpets and

312
mats) as well as zaha’ir (provisions). As we see from this
network of relationships, the Kadlzadeli movement changed its
nature under Ustuvanl Efendi’s leadership when his followers
began to run after their own interests.
Through some halberdiers who, according to Na'Ima, were
greedy for worldly goods, the dariissa'ade agasi and the people in
the palace heard the news that many people had firm belief in
Ustuvanl Efendi. Eventually, the reputation of this preacher
reached the ear of the valide sultan. The Kadizadelis begem to
312
Ibid., 6:222-223.
142
receive bags of money from the palace occasionally as a sign of
313
favor.
ttstuvani Efendi also negotiated with the wealthy men among
his followers about appointments to state offices and changes in
conferring positions. Through their spies, the kadizadelis sent
secret messages to the courtiers notifying them that certain
actions would be "beneficial for the religion and the state."
UstiivanT Efendi’s followers paid the necessary people in the
palace with sealed bags of money secretly so that the affairs
would run as they wished. This situation continued for a few
years. As a result, the agas in the harem and the servants in
the mabevn (the private apartments of the palace) piled up a

314
great amount of property.
Na'Ima notes that the activities of the kadizadelis
continued until the Qmar (Plane-Tree) Incident or Vak' a-i
Vakvakive Cemajlyelewel 1066/March 1<>56 which took place in a
period when the agas in the palace dominated the state

315
affairs. Outwardly, the reason for this event was the payment
of the janissaries with base coins while some of them did not
receive their salaries at all. When the sipahis. too, joined the
janissaries, this group came before the sultan, asking him to
hold a council. The rebels demanded the execution of 30 people
313
Ibid., 6:223.
314
Ibid., 6:223-224.
315
Ibid., 6:139-149; Veclhl, Tarih. fols. 45b-46b;
Uzunparsili, Osmanli Tarihi. 3, pt. 1:29(J-293.
143
from the palace who., in the end, were executed and hung upon a
plane-tree in Atmeydani. After this incident, the Kadizadelis
lost the favor of their supporters in the palace to some extent.
The events which followed, however, helped the Kadizadelis
gain ascendancy again. According to Na'Ima, when Boynuyaralx
Mehmed Pasa became grand vezlr in Receb 1066/April 1656, he did
not take heed to consult the 'ulema’ and mesavih in state
affairs. In his actions, Mehmed Pa?a did not care about being
called giiilty of taking bribes. He sold state offices by auction
saying that his purpose was to fill the treasury. The
Kadizadelis and their intermediaries became hostile to
Boynuyaralx Meljmed Pa$a who no longer gave them a chance to take

316
bribes.
✓
After the defeat of the Ottoman fleet in the Aegean, the
Venetians took Bozcaada and Lemnos (§ewal and Zilka'ade
1066/July ani August 1656). The Kadizadelis attempted to take
advantage of this disaster by putting the blame on "the abundance
of oppressors and corrupt ones in Ottoman society." They also
claimed that the land of Islam was full of bid'ats. The
KadTzadeli preachers openly blamed the grand vezlr and the mufti
317
as protectors of the Sufis.
Indeed, not infrequently, Sufis and men of religion,
including the sevhiilislams. collaborated against the pEdxzadelis.
316
Na'Ima, Tarlh, 6:224.
317 °
Ibid., 6:224.
144
Na'Ima relates an incident which is informative on this point. A
group of virtuous men who were sevhs of religious orders, namely
GafurT Mahmud Efendi (d. 1075/1664), Cennet Efendi (d.
1075/1664), Erdebilizade Ahmed Efendi (d.. 1080/1669) and some

318
others applied to Hanefl Efendi, (d. 1069/1658). They
complained about the unjust usurpation of power by the
Kadizadelis and
their insultive behavior towards the Sufis.
319
BolevI Mustafa Efendi (d. 1086/1675) , Minkarlzade Yahya Efendi
(d. 1088/1677) and some other great men from the 'ulema’ were in
320
Hanefl Efendi’s presence.
During the conversation, Hanefl Efendi said:
The Kadizadelis resemble a rooted tree whose

leaves and branches have spread into the Ottoman
state. One branch of it has reached the corps of
the imperial guards (bSstancilar ocagi). The
other branch extends from the halberdiers
(baltacilar ocagi) to the imperial palace. Yet
another one has penetrated into the market traders
(ehl-i suk). In this way, the Ka<ii2®delis
consolidated their power. They do not listen to
! mild advice. How should we drive them away? 321
318
Ibid., 6:229-230. This incident is related under the
events of the year 1066/1655-56. Hanefl Efendi was appointed
sevhvilislam in the place of Hocazade in Sewal 1066/July 1656.
See Uzuncarsili, Osmanli Tarihi. 3, pt. 1:301-302. He kept this
office only for four months.
3 it,ft9
For BolevI Mustafa Efendi’s biography, see A. Rif'at,
Davha. 68-69. His term of office as sevhulislam was between
1067/1657-1069/1659.
320
Minkarlzade’s term of office as sevhulislam was between
1073/1662-1084/1673. See Ibid., 70-71. °
321
Na'Ima, Tarlh. 6:230.
145
BolevI Mustafa Efendi answered: "O dear friends, there
exists the sword of the b a t m among the ehlullah (mystics). Why
don’t you refer to it as a means of revenge"? &afurl Efendi who
was listening to these words said: "My lord, we prefer this
affair to be resolved by the order of the zahir. If this is
treated as a batini matter, indeed God, may His glory be exalted,
is the Great Avenger." Ke then recited the verse "Guard
yourselves against temptation. The wrongdoers among you are not
the only men who shall be tempted" (8:25) and invited the people/
in the gathering to recite the Fatiha. Thereafter, everybody
present at the gathering departed. Before a week passed,

322
decision was issued for exiling the Kadizadelis.
On 26 Zilka'ade 1066/ September 15, 1656, Boynuyarali
Mehmed Pasa was deposed and Koprulii Mehmed Pasawas appointed
grand vezlr. On the eigth day of Koprulii’s grand vezirate, the
Kadizadelis took to action which brought their ownênd. During
the Friday prayer in the Sultan Mehmed Mosque, the mti’ezîns
began the usual melodic recitation of the eulogy for the Prophet
(na't-serlf). A group among the Kadizadelis began to say
insolent words in a reviling fashion to silence the mfi’ezzins.
Upon the interruption of an opposing group, a noisy dispute
started. The turmoil came to the brink of turning into a

323
battle.
322
BolevI Muftafa Efendi who later became sevhulislam
in 1067/1657, was eventually banished to Egypt in 1-569/1659.
When he was reminded of the above-mentioned episode, he jokingly
said: "These men extendedthe sword of the b S t m so much that its
edge reached me as well." Ibid., 6:230.
323
Ibid., 6:224-225; Veclhl, TarTh. fol. 50a.
146
After this incident, the Kadizadelis decided to demolish
all dervish lodges in Istanbul and its outskirts and to pour the
rubble into the sea. The Kadizadelis also invited all Muslims to
assemble in the Sultan Mehmed Mosque with instruments of war in

324
their hands. They proclaimed that their purpose was to apply
the principle of el-emr bi’l-ma'ruf ve*l-nehv 'ani*1-munker.
After having destroyed the lodges, they would ask all the Sufis
whom they encountered in the streets to renew their faith. The
disobedient ones would be killed. Finally, the §adlzadelis

/
decided to ask the sultan’s permission in order to abolish all
bid’ats in the Ottoman Empire. Accordingly, they would demolish
the minarets of mosques until there remained only one minaret in’
325
each mosque.
324
Na'Ima, TarTt}. 6:225. Veclhl. T a r l h fol. 50a;
Miineccimbasi, Cami 1ii’d-Diivel. fol. 1181a.
325
Na'Ima, Tarlh. 6:225. The, objection of the
KadxzSdelis to more than one minaret' in mosques does not appear
among the controversial issues between the two sides. I have not
come across it in the writings of the KSdlzSdelis either. This
was indeed an issue, however, and probably the Kadizadelis relied
upon those traditions of the Prophet which state that mosques,
should be built without ornamentation. For example, in a
tradition reported by Ibn Abbas, the Prophet said: "I have not
been charged with building mosques of high altitude or
ornamenting them." See Sahlh-i BuharT Muhtasan Tecrid-i Sarih
Tercemesi ve Serhi. 7th ed. (Ankara: Emel Matbaacilik, 1983),
2:388. The first appearance of minarets in Islamic history is
not exactly known. Since there were no minarets during the
Prophet’s time, the call to prayer was recited on the roof of a
high building. See iA, 1971 ed. , s.v. "Mescld,’’ by Semavi
Eyice; iA, 1977 ed., s.v. "Ezan,” by Th. W. Juynboll. The
Kadizadelis may have thought that one minaret would be sufficient
for reciting -the call to prayer since building more than one
minaret would mean ornamenting the mosque, and hence a bid'at.
147
With the above resolutions, the Kadizadelis began to
assemble in the Sultan Mehmed Mosque with sticks and knives in
their hands. Na'Ima relates that among their followers were
suhtes (students of theology), stockpilers, "imposters" from
artisans and tradesmen

as well as "Cossack headmen fools."
326
(Hetman Kazak kakavanlan).
Realizing the danger of the situation, Koprulu Mehmed Pasa
first tried to stop the Kadizadelis through admonition and
warning. When this method proved to be ineffective, he consulted
with the leading 'ulema* and mesavih who decided that the words
of the Kadizadelis were falsehood and that their action would.
lead to conspiracy. They therefore presented to the sultan an
official memorandum asking for the punishment of the Kadizadelis
by death. While the sultan accepted this, upon the grand vezlr’s
request, the leaders of the movement Ustuvanl, Turk Ahmed and

327
Dlvane Mustafa were exiled to Cyprus. The sources do not
mention what treatment the other members of the Kadizadelis

received.
326
Na'Ima, Tarlh. 6:225.
327 57
Ibid., 6:225-226; Veclhl, Tarlh. fol. 50a; 'Abdl Pasa,
Vekavi'name, fol. 49a; Muneccimbasi, Cami*u *d-Duvel. fol. 1181a.
148
CHAPTER V
THE KADIZADELI MOVEMENT: THE THIRD STAGE
VANI EFENDI vs. NlYAZI-t MISRI EFENDI
(ca. 1069/1659-1105/1694)
149
Van! Efendi and the Kadizadelis
Although the Kaglzadeli movement was suppressed in the year
1066/1656, its influence continued with Vanl Efendi in a later
period. As we shall see in examining his life, Vanl first met
Kopriiluzade FSzil Ahmed Pa$a in 1069/1659 in Erzurum. He then
travelled to Bursa and Edirne, where court was held during most
of Mehmed IV’s reign. Owing to that sultan’s favor, he began to
teach Prince MustafS and was eventually appointed imperial

328
preacher. He continued to hold this influential position in
the palace for more than ten years until 1094/1683. According to
N'a'Tma, Van! penetrated the Ottoman Palace "under the guise of

329
asceticism." His attitude very much reflects that of the
Kadizadelis in his time. Let us first refer to Na'Tma’s account
of the Kadizadeli followers during the year 1066/1655-56 which
should enable us to understand the historian’s interpretation of

330
Vanl Efendi’s activities. Citing one of his informants by the
name of Ma'anzade Hiiseyin (d. 1102/1690), Na’Ima states that he
has seen many "hypocrites" among the

5a<jlzadelis who were
331
renowned for their piety and asceticism. Such people would
commit various forbidden acts behind the veil of secrecy and
would often recite the following couplet during their friendly

conversations:
328
$ehzade Mustafa later reigned as Mustafa II
(1106/1695-1115/1703)!"
329
Na’Ima, Tarlh. 6:228-229.
330 or
Ibid., 6:226-227.
331.
For Ma'anzade, see Introduction, note 22.
150
"The (outward) admonishers who, in prayer-arch (of
exhortation) and the pulpit, grandeur make,
When into their chamber they go, that work of
another kind they make." 332
Na'Tma alsoattributes various promiscuous acts to the
Kadizadelis. A wealthy and famous- one among them would shave his
moustache and tried to follow the sunnet of the Prophet in every
behavior. According to Na'Tma, Ma'anzade knew the above-
mentioned FakT closely. One day he asked him: "0, efendi, you
commit guilts related to sensual pleasures secretly. You act in
afanatical way, however, about matters which are outwardly
trivial. What is the reason for this"? The man answered:
Dear sir, you seem to be very naive. When a

person commits a canonically unlawful act (haram).
he does it for the purpose of acquiring wealth, a
sensual pleasure or a material delight. Only then
his sinful position will not be absurd.
Otherwise, what taste is there in using goiden and
silver vessels, wearing silk clothes, smoking
tobacco, listening to music and similar related
acts? An intelligent man forsakes and outwardly
rejects this kind of trivial pleasures. He,
however, shows fanaticism in the! spiritual realm
and makes the silly common people believe in his
good manners. Under the veil of secrecy, he can
run after worldly affairs and sensual pleasures
with his confidants. In this way, he will avoid
the suspicion of ignorant people. 333
Among our sources only Na'Tma relates this story possibly
withthe purpose of portraying a certain image of the Kaglzadelis
as people who committed sinful acts behind the veil of "religious

fanaticism."
332
Hafi?-i 5TrazT. The Divan-i Hafiz. trans.
H.Wilberforce Clarke. {Calcutta: Government of India Central
Printing Office, 1891), 1:272.
333
Na'Tma, Tarlh, 6:227-228.
151
Na’Ima then describes the position of $eyhulislam
Zekeriyazade Yahya Efendi (d. 1053/1644) vis a vis the

334
Kadizadelis. According to the historian, Yahya Efendi was a
man who had attained to true knowledge of God ('arifbillah) and
free from lies and pretense. He would not allow for the acts of
hypocrites. Upon his appointment as sevhulislam. he told some of
his confidants: "I have now become aware of the good qualities
in the acts of the hypocrites." When they asked his secret, he
answered:
I
I have found the hypocrites quite brave in
applying the emr-i ma'ruf ve nehv-i munker) and
other related affairs. The rabble, which esteems
externals highly, does not fear men endowed with
spiritual knowledge and free from lies. Hypocrisy
is on the same level as a secret sirk. 335 It is
therefore harmful to the person who commits it.
It seems useful to others, however, because of the
benefit it brings to them. I have been compelled
to place to high positions some hypocrites to whom
I had given a cool reception before. 336
At first, Yahya Efendi’s words appear contradictory since
his, tolerant attitude towards the Kadizadelis may mean an
approval of hypocrisy which is a great sin. He probably means
that the Kadizadelis, even though they are hypocritical, are
useful because of their bravery in applying el-emr bi'l-ma'ruf
ve’l-nehv 'ani’1-munker and the rabble has a tendency to listen
to them rather than the more subtle but sincere §ufl types.
After having described the "abominable" acts of the kadizadelis,
Na'Tma describes Van! as a champion in the field of such acts.
334
Ibid., 6:228.
• 335
Sirk: to give a companion or partner to God.
Redhouse. 1064.
336
Na'Ima.’ Tarlh.
O'
6:228.
152
337
VanX Mehmed Efendi (Sevh SewXd Mehmed el-Van! b. Sevh Bistam)
Van! Efendi was born in Hosab which is a liva (subdivision)
of the province of Van. He received his education first in the
family from his grandfather. Then he came to the city of Van and
began his formal education in a medrese. He stayed there until
his grandfather passed away. VanX Efendi then traveled to
Tabriz, Karabagh and Gand.ia in order to pursue his studies. In
these cities of Adharbavd.i an. he studied history, Kur’anic
commentary (tefslr) and history of the prophets (kisas-i'

338
enbiva). The sources do not mention why VanX chose to go to
Adharbaydjan, but we can speculate that probably because it was.
close to Van and had some renowned scholars. VanX studied with
some Molla NureddXn in Karabagh about whom the sources do not

/
give any information.
Upon completing his studies, VanX Efendi came to Erzurum.
Here, he held gatherings ! and conveyed his knowledge to his
listeners. His reputation spread in a short time. In Zilfcicce
1069/August 1659, Kopruluzade Fazil Aimed Pasa was appointed
governor of Erzurum. Contrary to his father’s intolerant
behavior towards the Kadizadelis, he treated Van! with
affection. This may be because of his character which is
described as mild and gentle, or maybe because he felt closer

337
The main sources on Vanl’s life are Ayvansarayi,
HadXka. 2:168-169; M. Tahir, OM, 2:50; Seyhl, Vekavi *. fols.
263b-264b; Turk Ansiklonedisi. 1976 ed., sTv. "Mehmed Efendi,
Vanizade," by Ismet Parmaksizoirlu; 'Ussakizade, Zevl. fols.
289a-293a.
338
Turk Ansiklooedisi. s.v. "Mehmed Efendi, Vanizade," by
Parmaksizoglu.
153
339
to the Iladxzadeli position than his father did. According to
M. Liitfx, from Erzurum, Vanl Efendi came to Bursa. He does not
340
indicate Vanx’s duration of stay in this city, however. When
Fazil Ahmed Pa$a became grand vezxr in the place of his deceased
father in RebT'yulewel 1072/October. 1661, he invited Vanx Efendi
to Edirne. Mehmed IV attended the Friday sermon which Van!
delivered in the old mosque (Camit-i *at~k). In the year
1074/1663, Vanl Efendi came to

Istanbul and was appointed
341
preacher in the Sultan Selxm mosque. By Mehmed IV’s favor,
Van! first became the teacher of the sultan, and then of Sehzade
Mustafa. When he received the title of imperial preacher
(hunkar va1izi). he later turned over the royal prince’s

342
education to his son-in-law Feyzullah Efendi in 1080/1669.
Vanl Efendi enjoyed the patronage of both the sultan and
the grand vezlr. Through the latter’s influence, for instance,
he was appointed to give Friday sermons at Yeni Camie (Valide

343
Sultan Cami'i in Receb 1074/January 1664 ). Mehmed IV, on the
other hand, bestowed upon him a salary (ulufe) of 2 0 0 0 afrces per
339
IA. 1977 ed., s.v. "Kopruliiler," by M. Tayyib
Gokbilgin.
340
M. Lutfx, Tuhfe. 33.
341
'Ussakxzade, Zevl. fol. 290a.
342
Feyzullah Efendi later became sevhulislam. His first
term of office was about one and a half months in 1099/1688, the
second was between 1106/1695 and 1115/1703. See iA, 1977 ed.,
s.v. "Feyzullah Efendi," by Orhan F. Koprulu; Turk Ansiklooedisi.
s.v. "Mehmed Efendi, Vanizade,” by Parmaksxzoglu.
343
Seyhl, Vekavi *. fol. 264a.
154
day from the accountancies of cizve (capitation tax collected
from non-Muslims) and gumruk (customs). He also gave VanT the
formal possession (temlTk) of the Kestel Castle in Bursa and of
the villages nearby, besides a patent to hold a landed estate in
freehold in the former Papas Bahpesi by the Bosphorus. Vani
Efendi built a mosque, a medrese and a seashore residence for
himself in
this area which was named after him and is known as
344
Vanikov to this day.
In the year 1087/1676, Kara Mustafa Pa$a, the son-in-law of
Koprulii Mehmed Pasa, was appointed grand vezlr upc-: the death of
razil Ahmed Pasa. When the second si^-ge of Vienna took place in
1094/1683, Van! Efendi was rêsent in the army with the position
345
of ordu seyhi. After the defeat at Vienna, which was a
disaster for the Ottoman armies,, the grand vezlr was executed and
Van! Efendi was summoned to Edirne by an imperial decree. From
there, he was exiled to his farm in Kestel. He fell ill and died
346 !
in 1096/1685.
Both 'L'ssaklzade and 5eyhT describe the intellectual
qualities of VanT Efendi with praiseful words. They describe him
as the sun of the heavens of science and spiritual knowledge.

344
Among the biographical sources, AyvansarayT notes that
VanT Efendi established connections with $eyhulislam MinkarTzade
Yaljya Efendi (d. 1088/1677) as well. He does not specify the
exact nature of this relationship, however. AyvansarayT, HadTka.
2:168:Turk Ansiklonedisi. s.v. "Mehmed Efendi, Vanizade," by
Parmaksizoglu.
345
Ordu Seyhi: an official who encouraged the army
during campaigns and orayed for victory. Pakalm, Sozluk. 2:729.
346
$eyfjT, Vekavic. fol.’ 264a; ‘UssakTzade, Zevl. fols.
291b-292a.
155
His mind penetrated into the subtle points of firm knowledge.
Van! Efendi is described by these sources as a learned person
both in the branches and methods of science. His comprehension
included the rational (ma'kul) and the traditional (menkul)

347
sciences. In contrast to these two biographers, Bursali
Mehmed Tahir, writing in the late nineteenth century, considers
Van! among the *ulema* "who did not understand politics and who
348
could not serve to unite the hearts of Muslims."
347
$eyhr, Vekayi'. fol. 264a; 'UssSkTzade, Zevl. fol. 292b.
348
M. Tahir, QH, 2:50.
156
VanT Mehmed Efendi*s Works
349
1. Van? Efendi's Risales on Sufi Practices and ft-id'ats
In these risgles. which are similar in content, Vanx Efendi
quotes Kur’anic verses and refers to the traditions of the
Prophet. He also cites books such as Tefslr-i Kadi Bevzavx.
TefsTr-i Kessaf. Serh-i Eudurx. Bezzazive. Bidave and

350
'Avarifii' 1-Ma'arif.
2. Munse'at
This work consists of Van! Efendi’s correspondence with
statesmen, particularly with the grand vezlr F5zxl Ahmed
Pa?a. Munse'at also includes letters in which VanT
Efendi prays -for the sultan. These letters are • entitled

351 /
du'aname.
349
In this section, I will enumerate those works of Vanx
Efendi which are most relevant for this thesis. The copies of
his risales which I have examined in Siileymaniye Library are the
following: MuhvT's-Sunnet MumTtu'1-Bid'at. MS. Kasidecizade
663/1. (Another copy of this work is in Istanbul University L.,
MS. T 6273. VanT Efendi expresses his views on tobacco in a
section of this work); Risale-i VanT. MS. Esad Efendi 3780/8;
TasavvufT Bid'atlerden Sakxnmava Da'ir Risale. MS. Hacx Besir Aga
406/3.
350
For Ka<Ji Beyzavx, see note 140. For Tefsxr-i Kessaf.
see note 164; for Serh-i KudurT and Bezzazive. see note 253;
Hidave: a work by Burhaneddin 'AIT b. Ebu Bekir el-Merginanx
(d. 593/1197) on HanefT Law; 'Avanfu'l-Ma'Srif: a work by
Sehabeddxn Ebu Hafs 'Omer b. 'Abdullah es-Suhreverdx
(d. 632/1234) who was a mystic and Safi'I theologian.
351
Miinse *at. Siileymaniye L. , MS. Ayasofya K 4308.
157
VanT Efendi in the Ottoman Sources
Under the events of the year 1066/1655-56, Na'Tma has a
section on Vanx Efendi. He notes that VanT emerged with the
purpose of piety, but later yearned for worldly benefactions.
With his acts of "hypocrisy," he deceived Fazil AJjmed Pa$a who
became grand vezlr in 1072/1661 and approached the sultan through
his patronage. In Na'Tma’s view, having an insatiable appetite
for luxury and favors, VanT turned against his benefactor Fazil/
Ahmed Pasa. Na'Tma then prays that God protect the people from
those habitually deceitful ones who exploit religion and

352
asceticism for obtaining worldly riches.
As an example, the historian relates the following story
about VSnT Efendi: Once, one of. his sympathizers asked him: "My
lord, your uniqueness in matters of asceticism is known to
everybody. You still

favor in some ways, however, worldly
I
opulence and show an inclination for concubines, pearls, jewels
and furs. I cannot understand the secret in this behavior."
VanT Efendi answered him saying:
0 ignorant man, the world itself is not precisely

blameworthy. All the people run after a great
benefaction. What is despised is the manner of
receiving these benefactions and the way of taking
food or drink. You do not resemble me in this
respect. Eating a morsel of food may be
canonically unlawful (haram) for you. Thanks to
my knowledge and intelligence, however, it becomes
lawful Ihelal) for lue. 353
352
Na'Tma, Tarlh, 6:228-229.
353
Ibid., 6:229.
158
The man asked for an example. VanT Efendi said:
When a piece of meat gets squeezed between your
teeth while eating you force it out with a
toothpick and swallow it. Hence, you commit a
mekruh (an abominable act). I, however, politely
swallow it with the help of my tongue. It
therefore becomes lawful. 354
He then gave another example saying:
You buy comestibles in return for money or goods

which you have obtained illegally. Hence, what
you eat also becomes haram. We, however, buy
clothes and comestibles on credit. In the
beginning of the month, we pay the money from our
doubtful possessions. Therefore, by using this
trick (hole), what we eat becomes canonically
lawful thelal). In attaining opulence, too, we
have scholarly acts of disposal. What we do
therefore becomes permissible. 355
The above-mentioned story relates the tricks which
according to VanT Efendi, render certain acts canonically lawful.
Na'Tma probably narrates it in order to portray a negative image
of Van” . In any case, this story is mentioned only by Na'Tma;
therefore it cannot be authenticated by the other sources on the

Kadlz'Sdelis.
Let us now examine V5nT Efendi’s relations with the palace
by referring to the relevant Ottoman sources. Mehmed IV
cherished YanT’s company so much that he kept showering valuable
gifts on the scholar. 'Abdl Pasa states, for instance, that in
354
Ibid., 6:229.
355
By "doubtful possessions,” VanI probably means
oossessions obtained in a canonically unlawful way. Ibid.,
6:229.
159
Sewal 1076/April 1666, the sultan offered a hundred sheep to
356
Van! Efendi and the du'acis who were with him. Again,
according to 'AbdT Pasa’s account, in 1076/1666, after the sultan
and the people of the enderun performed the prayers, the preacher
VanT Efendi gave a sermon "enlightening the hearts of the
listeners." The sultan granted gifts to VanT Efendi,
imam efendi. the aii’ezzins and the mu'arrifs. (the muezzins and
dervishes in charge of praying for the people who do charities).

357
According to Rasid, Meljiaed jV honored VanT not only by
material gifts. Dressed in disguise, he actually visited VanT at

358
his house in Receb 1077/December 1666. Rasid mentions VanT
Efendi on other occasions as well. In Mufcarrem 1078/June 1667,
when Sehzade Mustafa was si:: years old, a ceremony took place in
order to celebrate the beginning of his education. Accordingly,
tents were set up near the imperial camp in the village of Togan
situated not far from Larissa in Greece. Seyhiilislam
MinkarTzade Yahya Efendi, vezlrs, other officialls of high rank
and the preacher VanT Efendi assembled on the occasion of the
anniversary of the Prophet’s birth. Meipsed IV taught his son
three or four words from the alphabet. Those present at the

356
'AbdT Pasa, Vekavi'name, fol. S3a. By the word
"du'aci," the historian probably means officials of mosques
especially appointed for reciting prayers. See Redhouse. 313.
357 -
For mu'arrif see Pakalm, Sozliik. '2:552-553. The
above-mentioned account appears in 'AbdT Pasa, Vekavi'name, fol.
107b and Ra$id, TarTh, 1:136-137.
358 °
Ra?id, TSrTh, 1:134.
160
ceremony such as the 'ulema* and the vezTrs were given
359
presents.
Under the events of Safer 1080/July 1669, *Abdr Pa$a
relates that Van! Efendi held classes two days a week in the
three tents set up behind the imperial tent. At this time, ‘AbdT
Pasa had the post of nisanci (an officer charged with inscribing
the imperial signature on imperial letters) with the rank of a
vezlr. Although he himself was among VSnT Efendi’s students,
'AbdT Pa§a does not give any information about the content of the'
lectures which might

have helped us in understanding VanT’s
360
thought as a RadTzadeli or a selefT.
According to Rasid, a few days a week, a lecture on the
commentary of Ka<Ji Beyzavl (d. 691/1291?) and matters related to
Kur’anic studies would take place in the sultan’s presence. In
the year 1078/1667-68, Seyhulislam MinlcarTzade Yahya Efendi gave
a scholarly talk on these subjects which very much pleased the

sultan.
Rasid reiterates 'AbdT Pasa’s account saying that Mehmed IV
ordered three tents to be set up behind the imperial tent for
VanT and his students where they would hold classes twice a week.
The sources do not mention whether Prince Mustafa was among

361
Vani’s students.
359
Ibid., 1:160-161.
360
'AbdT Pasa, Vekavi'name, fol. 152b.
361
Rasid, Tarlh. 1:161. As it appears from Rasid’s
account, VanT Efendi must have been present at the sovhii)ialam’s
lecture.
161
Owing to his prestigious position in the palace, VSnT
Efendi often enjoyed the same favors as the highest officials in
the protocol. In Zilfjicce 1082/March 1672, the sulfan presented
some officials of high rank with horses from the imperial stable.
Together with Seyhulislam Minkarlzade Yahya Efendi, the two
kadi'askers of Rumeii and Anatolia and the

re’Isulkiittab. Van!
362
Efendi, too, received a hcrse to ride on during campaigns. In
Safer 1089/March 1678, the sultan invited some state officials to
a banquet in Yali Kasri. There, together with the grand vezlr,,
the seyhiilis!am and some vezTrs, VanT Efendi too, received a

363
precious fur coat.
362
Sari Mehmed Pasa, Ziibde-i Vekavi'at. fol. 9b.
363
Ibid., fol. 43a. The sevhulislam present at the
banquet was Catalcaii 'Ail Efendi (d. 1103/1692).
162
Van! Efendi*s Acts Against the Sufis
Taking advantage of his influential position in the palace,
VanT Efendi took action against the §ufTs. Indeed, an
examination of his risales reveals his despising attitude towards
them. According to VanT, the Sufis of his time are "impure and
364
innovators” whose intentions are not good. In his view,
displaying an animosity towards the §ufls which resembles the
attitude of the ICadlzadelis, Muslims should read the kutub-i.
ser'-i serif and not the books written by the §ufls. He then
cites some of the works written by the mystics which Muslims
should refrain from reading. These are ihva-i 'Ulumu’d-DTn.
*A v an fu 1 1-Ma1 ari f. Resehat Cavnu*l-Havat. N'efahatu *1-Uns .

365 ” ‘
Kimva-i Sa'adet. ,
According to VanT Efendi, it is incumbent on every Muslim
to behave in observance of the serT'at. This requires acting in

t
line with the views of the miictehidln (the expounders of Islamic
law) as verse 4:59 admonishes: "Believers, obey Allah and the
Apostle and those in authority among you.” In his commentary on
364
VanT, MuhvT, fol. 3b.
365
VanT, Bid'atler. fol. 187a. Kutub-i Serf-i Serif are
the works on fikh and serT’at compiled according to the
principles laid down in the four mezhebs. Kfitub-i Mesavih-i
Tarlkat are the works of mystics, ihva-i ’Ulumii’d-PTn and
Kimva-i Sa'adet are works by Ebu 9amid Muhammed b. Muhammad
el-GazalT (d. 505/1111); for ’Avarifii’l-Ma'arif. see note 350;
Resehat *aynu*1-Harat is the work by the, Persian author Faijreddxn
'All b. giiseyin el-Va'iz es-Safl on the biographies and miracles
of N'aksibendT sevhs; iVefahatu*1-iins is a work by NureddTn
'Abdurrahman b. Ahmed el-Cami' (d. 898/1492), Persian scholar and
poet. The book is on the lives and ideas of Nak$ibendT sevhs.
163
this verse, Ka<}i Beyzavx explains the ulu'l-emr as scholars
studying the serl'at. namely, the muteserri 'Tn and the
muctehidxn. VanI Efendi warns the Muslims that

who acts he
366
contrary to the books of serl'at deviates from his mgzheb.
Van! Meipned Efendi gives details on practices which he
regards as bid'at according to the books of seri'at. Among those
innovations are cehrle evrad after the morning prayer,
cehrle tesblh ve tehlTl in gatherings and in the mosque, and
cehrle zikr on special nights such as Rega’ib, Berat and

367
Kadir.
Vani’s uncompromising attitude towards the §ufTs is'
reflected in his actions as well. In a period when plague
disturbed the people of Istanbul, VanT gave even more fervent

368
sermons, blaming the §ufls for this calamity. This subject
does not appear in Vani’s writings, but probably the preacher
thought that the practices of Sufis, which he considered against
the ser~ 1 at. caused God’s wrath. In the year 1077/1666, under
the influence of VSnl, the sultan announced the illegality of
366
VanT, Muhvt. fois. lb-2b.
367
Cehrle means outspoken or read aloud in public.
Zikr: praising the name of God in litanies; tesblh: a litany
of praise to God; tehlTl: pronouncing God’s unity by the
religious formula 15ilaheillallah: evrad: reciting portions of
prayer at certain times. Redhouse. 354, 1125, 1155. VanT deals
with these practices in his work MuhvT. fol. 2a and
Risale-i VanT, fol. 78b. They will be treated under the section
of zikr in Part III of this thesis.
368
Golpxnarlx, Mevlevxlik. 166.
164
some acts of the Sufis. These were the sena' of the Mevlevls and
the religious
practice of the galvetls which the £a4 ^zadelis
369
sarcastically called tahta denaefr. Members of the §ufi
orders called this ban as vasag-i bed (the bad prohibition).
Shortly after this, in the year 1081/1670, by an imperial decree,
taverns were demolished and the department of hamr emlnliai was

370 0
abolished.
Dr.Covel considers Vanl’s activities on the whole useless

and describes them as follows: '
He hath children at Brussa, and is of such

authority amongst the Turkes, as about 6 years
since preach’d down all publick Tavernes and ale
houses, and the Dervises’ publick meetings; yet I
believe there is as much wine drunk (or more) and
as many tavernes by connivance and bribery as ever
there was. The fame of., this old cox comb is more
than a Pope amongst them. 371
Another practice which VanT Efendi opposed was visiting the
tomb of saints. An event recorded in the chronicles of both

t
'Abdl Pasa and Rasid serves as an example for his views on this
subject. According to 'Abdl Pa$a, in RebX'yulagir 1078/September
1667, Mehmed IV addressed the people in the palace relating.them
369
The expression tahta denmek (to kick the floor-boards)
was probably used as a sarcastic depiction of the Halvetl zikr.
See Katib Celebi, Balance. 136. **
370 Golpmarli, Mevlevxlik. 167. Emin was a salaried

high-ranking officer appointed by or in the name of the sultan.
He was in charge of administering or controlling a department or
a source of revenue. See El* s.v. "Emin," by B. Lewis.
Accordingly, hamr emTni would supervise the commerce and
consumption of alcoholic beverages.
371
Covel, "Extracts," 269.
165
VanT Efendi’s words about the people who visited the tomb of
Kanber Baba near Hafsa. The sultan stated that in one of his
sermons, Van! Efendi charged the people who asked for spiritual
aid from Kanber Baba with polytheism (sirk). At the end of the
sultan’s words, a telhls arrived .from Kavmakam Pasa suggesting to

372
demolish this tomb. The sultan agreed and wrote an imperial
order to this effect. He also demanded the officials in the
nearby towns to prevent people from visiting this place. Inline

373
with the imperial order, the tomb itself was demolished.
In 'Abdl Pasa’s view, ignorant people do not know the
manner of visiting tombs. Their act is equal to sirk and
aberration from the right path. 'Abdl Pasa approves of the
sultan’s timely intervention in this event. The destruction of
Kanber Baba’s tomb shows theinfluence of Van! Efendi upon the
sultan. By his initiative,the practice of visiting tombs was

374
officially forbidden in 1078/1667.
But together with his personal fortune, his influence on
the law of the land declined after the military failure of
1094/1683 in Vienna. The practice of seal' was permitted again
in 1095/1684, one year before VanT Efendi’s death. At this time,
372
Telhl$: a summary report about important state
affairs prepared by the grand vezlr and drawn up at the Porte.
See iA, 1977 ed., s.v. "TeltiTs," by C.Orhonlu.
373
'AbdT Pasa, Vekavi'name, fols. 129a-129b; Rasid,
TarTh. 1:139.
° 374
'AbdT Pasa, Vekavi'name. fol. 129b.
166
VanT had already returned from the second siege of Vienna and was
375
exiled to his farm in Kestel. We can speculate that since
VanI had lost his power, the Sufis probably influenced the sultan
and obtained permission for their dances again. The ban was not
totally effective, for §ufl sevhs such as Niyazl-i

MisrT (d.
376
1105/1694) continued the activities of 2 ikr and devran.
375
'Us$aklzade, Zevl. fols. 291b-292a; Seyhi, Vekavi *.
fol.264a.
376
M. Lutfi, Tuhfe. 37.
167
Seyh NiyazT-i MisrT:
The Sufi Leader a*t the Third Stage of the Eadlzadeli Movement
As we have seent in the previous two stages of the
movement, the Kadizadelis and the §ufTs each had their own
leaders. In the third stage, Van! Efendi and the Halvet1 mystic
NiyazT-i MisrT can be considered as the leaders of the two sides.
377
The Life of Mivazi-i MisrT
NiyazT-i MisrT was born in RebT'yiilewel 1027/February 1618
in a village near Malatya. His father 'AIT Celebi, who was among
the notables of the village, belonged to the NaksibendT order.’
The young NiyazT started his education in the family. He then
became the disciple of a HalvetT seyh. While his father
encouraged him to enter the NaksibendT order, MiySzi took the
permission of his parents and, in 1048/1638-39, set out for the
eastern provinces in order to complete his education. ‘ He
traveled in Diyarbakir and Mardin, staying in each city for one
year. In these cities, he studied theology and logic. His real
purpose, however, was to learn the essentials of the Sufi

378
path.
377
The biographical sources which I have consulted are the
following: Abdiilbaki Goipmarli, "Niyazi-i Misri,"
Sarkivat Mecmuasi. 7 (1972): 183-226; M. Lu^fT, Tuhfe. 35-37; M.
Sadik VicdanI, Tomar-i Turuk—i ~Aliveden HalvetTve (Istanbul:
Evkaf-i islamiye Matbaasi,1338/1919-20-1^41/1922-23), 111-113; M.
Tahir, OM, 1:172-175; Niyazl-i MisrT, irfan Sofralan. trans. ,
Suleyman Ates (Ankara: Emel Matbaasi, 1972); 'UssSkTzade, Zevl.
fols. 355b-356b.
378
Goipmarli, "Niyazi-i Misri," 183.
168
After four years spent traveling in Baghdad and Karbala’,
he went to Egypt and continued his education in Cami'u’l-Ezher.
There, NiyazT-i MisrT also joined the KadirT order and stayed in
the service of a ljadirT sevh for four years- One day, his seyh
told him:
"Unless you completely give up the desire to pursue the exoteric
sciences (zahir ’ilmi). the science of the tarTkat will not be
known to you." NiyazT-i Mi^rT admits that it was very difficult
for him to give up studying the sciences. He cried praying to

/
God and lied down to sleep iistihare) in the hope that God will
decide for the best and make that decision known to him in a
379
dream.
In his dream, NiyazT saw himself serving $eyh 'Abdulkadir
ei-GTlanl (d. 561/1166) who told him that he would be able to
learn the science of the tarTkat only from a spiritual guide
tmiirsld) foreordained by God. 'Abdulkadir el-GTlanT also told

I
NiyazT that his sevh was not in this city. Niyazi-i MisrT told
his dream to his sevh and, taking the latter’s permission, came
380
to Istanbul in the year 1056/1646. Here, he lived in a room
of the Sokullu Mehmed Pa§a Mosque. After a while, he went to
Bursa where he stayed in a medrese near UIu Cami'.
379
N. MisrT, irfan Sofralan. 39-40.
380
Ibid., 40-41. B.G. Martin notes that around the year
1060/1650. MisrT had an argument with UsûvanT Efendi in Istanbul.
The subject of the discussion was consumption Of coffee and
tobacco. See Martin, "Khalwati Order," 289. I have not been
able to detect any written evidence of this controversy.
169
Under the influence of a dream, Niy5zl-i Misri went to U$ak
381
to become a disciple of ttmml Sinan in 1057/1647. Having
served in the lodge of his sevh in Elmali for a while, NiyazT
went to Istanbul, but the sources do not mention his duration of
stay there. He then returned to the lodge and stayed there until
1065/1654-55.
After traveling around U$ak and Kutahya, he went back to
U$ak upon the death of his sevh in 1067/1657, then moved on to

382 “
Bursa where he got married.
As we have seen, Sufi practices such as semS*. zikr and
devran were prohibited in 1077/1666. During this ban, NiyazT-i-
MisrT was still allowed to give sermons at the Ayasofya Mosque
where he publicly opposed VanT. He warned the people by saying:
"Do not resemble Van! in the zikr." (Zikrullahda Van! olmavin).
This fact demonstrates that the authorities, even after the ban,
383
played both sides.
Niyazl-i MisrT’s reputation increased day by day. Upon the
invitation of the grand vezlr FSzil Ahmed Pasa, NiyazT-i MisrT
went to Edirne. Because of his speeches based on onomancy
{cifr), however, he was exiled to Rhodes in 1083/1673. After a
stay of nine months there, he came back to Bursa. Lest his

381
tor the biography of Sinan-i UmmT (Elmalili).see M.
Tahir, OM, 1:85. He established the Singniye branch of the
HalvetT order.
382
Goipmarli, "Niyazi-i Misri," 183-184.
383
M. Lutfl, Tuhfe, 37. This sentence probably also
means "Do not be fatigued in the zikr." since the word "vanT”
also means languid or fatigued.
170
speeches cause a disturbance of public order, he was exiled to
Lemnos in 1087/1676. Although the sultan pardoned him in

384
1089/1678, he chose to remain in Lemnos until 1103/1692. The
sultan probably forgave MisrT because he wanted to be on good
terms with such an influential sevh'. We do not know why NiyazT
stayed in Lemnos so long, but we can speculate that presumably he
continued to write his works and spread his ideas more freely in
this island. In 1103/1692, he returned to Bursa once again.
i
In this year, an event took place in Bursa demonstrating
MisrT’s power of sanctity that works miracles. During the period
when the ban on SufT practices was in effect, a woman among the.
sympathizers of NiyazT-i MisrT had asked him: "My lord, zikr and
devran have been prohibited. Is this true"? Mr§rT answered:
"This is nothing, sister. Time will come when people will martyr
our DervT?Suleyman on the night of Kadir because of an issue

385
concerning ritual worship and zikr."
Indeed, on the 27th night of Ramazan, the Levletii*1-Kadr
of the year 1103/1392, when people had congregated in Cami *-i
KebTr, some rebellious people who were "fanatics" (muta*a^lbTn-i
serkesan) started an uproar. They attacked imam ‘AbdfirrafcTss
Efendi, claiming that it was not permissible to perform the
salat-i Kadir in the mosque. While the rioters were about to
kill the imam. 'Abdiirrahlm Efendi found a protector in DervTs
384
Goipmarli, "Niyazi-i Misri,” 184-185; 'UssSJjTzade,
Zevl, fols. 355b-356a.
385
M. LiitfT, Tuhfe. 35.
171
Suleyman who could not escape being wounded himself. Eventually,
386
Dervls Suleyman died during the turmoil. This incident shows
that although seven years had passed over Vani’s death, the
matters of dispute were still lively. Most probably, those who
provoked the incident in the Caml’-i Keblr had been the followers
of VanT.
During the reign of Aljmed II (1102/1691-1106/1695),
Niyazl-i Misri volunteered to participate in the campaign on

/
Austria. In the
year 1104/1693, he set up a tent near Yeni
387
Kaplica assembling 200 disciples. Lest this action lead to a
rebellion (huruc). the sultan sent the sevh a decree ordering him
to stay in Bursa and support the Ottoman army with his prayers.
N'iyazT-i MisrT did not heed this order and went to Tekirdag,
where the sultan welcomed MisrT by having a carriage sent for the
sevh and money for his dervishes. This act of the sultSn
probably demonstrates that the palace wanted to have good

I
relations with MisrT in order to keep his actions under control.
NiyazX did not go with the army, but in 1104/1693 he went to
Edirne to give sermons in the Selimiye Mosque. He was, however,
under the suspicion of planning a conspiracy. An order was
therefore issued for exiling him to the island of Lemnos.

388
NiyazT-i MisrT died there in 1105/1594.
386
Ibid., 36.
387
Silafrdar, Tarlh, 2:704-705; Rasid, TarTh. 2:216-218.
388 '*
Goipmarli, "Niyazi-i Misri," 185.
172
The Works of NivazT-i Mi^rT
In this section, I will briefly describe Meva’idu’1-
'irfan ve ‘Ava’idu*1-thsan which is often regarded as his most
important work. Besides this, his risales to which I have
actually referred in this thesis will be enumerated.
3 <\
09
A
1. Mev5’idu*1-‘trfan ve 'Ava'idu’1-ihsan
Niyazl-i Misri wrote this work in Arabic. It consists of 71
parts entitled ma *ide (feast) of which only the 6 8 th is in
Turkish. Goipmarli notes that Mi§rT planned this work in
72 parts, but he passed away when he finished the 71st

390
m a 1i d e .
This work consists of MisrT’s- memoirs concerning his
spiritual experiences and passages from his life,
commentaries on £ur’anic verses and traditions of the
Prophet. He also refers to some well-known Sufi books such
as Ibn ‘Arabi’s Futuhat. Cami’s Serh-i Fusus and RumT’s

391
MesnevI. The book also has sections on Hizir, the
malediction of Yezld and praising God’s name (zikr).
389
Siileymaniye L., MS. Re$id Efendi 438/9. Suleyman Ates
has translated and edited this work under the title of
irfan Sofralan. In this thesis, I have referred to this
translation.
390
Goipmarli, "Miyazi-i Misri,” 194.
391
Fiituhatii’1-Mekkive: a work by MuhyiddTn Ibn 'Arab! (d.
638/1240); Serh-i Fusu^: Nureddin ‘Abdurrahman b. Ahmed el-
Camf’s (d. 898/1492) commentary on Ibn 'ArabT’s work Fuguîi’l-
Hikemi?MesnevT: Mevlana CelaleddTr.-i RumT’s (d. 672/1273 )' work
of mystic poetry.
173
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
2. MecmP*a-i Hz.MisrT
In this collection, the following two risales are relevant
for our subject:

392
"Allahu Nuru*s-Semavat ve’i-’Arz" Avetinin TefsTri
This risaie contains NiyazT-i Misri*s commentary on verse
24:35 and his views against VanI Efendi.
393
Turuk-i:Alivenin Zikir ve Avinin Men' Risalesi
In this risaie. Niyazi-i Misri opposes the orthodox ’ulema*
( ’ulema’-i zahir) who prohibited the zikr and other SufT
rituals in 1077/1666. He also criticizes VanI Efendi for
his negative attitude towards the §ufls. The ban on §ufl
practices was lifted in 1095/1684. XiySzI-i MisrT must have
therefore composed this risaie sometime between the years

1077/1666 and 1095/1684.
3. SivazT-i M i s r T ’s Risales on Hizir:

394
Risale-i
~ ■VHizrive-i
- "' — KadTme
»
395
Risale-i Hizrive-i CedTde
In these risales. Niyazl-i MisrT symbolically interprets the
story of the prophet Moses and Hizir in the Qur’an.
392
Istanbul University L.. MS. TY 6374/4. fols- 35b-51a.
393
Istanbul University L., MS. TY 6374/16, fols.
119b-125a.
394
Siileymaniye L., MS. Pertev Pasa 620/10, fols. 40a-46a.
395
Siileymaniye L. , MS.^Pertev Pasa 620/11, fols. 46a-48b.
174
396
4. *Akrdetu*1-MisrT
In this risSle, NiyazT-i Mi§rx claims that the Prophet's
grandsons Hasan and tjuseyin are prophets. He also approves
of the malediction of YezTd.
396
Siileymaniye L. , MS. Pertev Pasa 620/12, fols. 55a-55b.
175
The Image of-Vanx Efendi in Niyazl-i MisrT’s Works
In a number of his risales. NiySzT-i MifrI expresses his
views about VanI Efendi. This section aims to give a brief
description of these works which will hopefully reveal the Sufi
viewpoint about VanI Efendi. In contrast to these risSles of
Misri, in the works of 'AbdulmecTd SivasI and 'Abdulahad Nurl we
do not see any direct reaction to the acts of the Katjlzadelis

against the mystics. /
In his risaie on the prohibition of zikr and the rituals of
the §ufls, NiyazT-i Mi§rT counts BirgivI and KadTzade among the.
'ulema’ who served the religion of Islam with sincerity (ihlas).
VanI, however, does not

belong -to this group. According to
/
Misri, he is a cause of disorder in Islam (sebeb-i nifak-i ain-i
Muhammedive) and his religion and creed (mezheb) are equal to
falsehood. NiyazT-i Mi^rl notes that during the time of BirgivI

t
and Kadlzade, Sufi orders continued to practice their rituals
freely. VanI, however, instigated the sultan against them and,
under his influence, Sufi practices such as tevhld and zikr were
337
forbidden.
As we have seen in examining Vani’s life, Koprulu razil
Ahmed Pasa met VanI Efendi when he was governor in Erzurum and
advised him to Mehmed IV. VanI enjoyed the sultan’s favor and
was appointed as preacher in the palace. His son-in-law
reyzullah Efendi (d. 1115/1703) began to teach the royal princes.
397
M. MisrT, Turuk, fols. 119a-121a.
176
In Mi§rT’s view, it was VanT who gave way to debauchery among the
royal princes. He also claims that Fazil Ahmed Pasa

regarded
398
VanI not only as a teacher and sevh but also as a prophet.
XiyazT-i Mi?rl further states that Van! piled up property
during the reign of Meljmed IV. VSnl also allegedly declared that
it was incumbent upon every Muslim who had 100 kurus to perform
the pilgrimage. In this way, he sent many poor people to

399
Mecca. In Niyazl’s depiction, then, Van! presented himself as
a very pious person and obliged people to perform certain
religious duties without considering the circumstances under

which that duty would be binding.
In another risaie. NiyazT-i Mi§rT first quotes the

400
following verse:
Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth.

His light may be compared to a niche that
enshrines a lamp, the lamp within a crystal of
starlike brilliance. It is lit from a blessed
olive tree neither eastern nor western. Its very
oil would almost shine forth, though no fire
touched it. Light upon light: Allah guides to
His light whom He will. (24:35).
Mi§n then describes Hasan and (ûseym, the grandsons of
the Prophet, as the light of God. VanI does not see this light
for God abandoned him in darkness. Niyazl-i Misri also describes

A A 1
-i\J A.
V5nl and his followers as YezTd.
398
Ibid., fol. 123a. '
399
Ibid., fol. 123b.
40C
N. MisrT, "Allahu Nuru’s-Semavati ve’l-'Arz Ayetinia
Tefslri," fol. 33b.
401
Ibid., fol. 35a.
17'
In this same treatise, the author describes VanT as the
performer of seven vices which the Prophet enumerated in a

402
tradition. This hadIs was reported by Ebu Hureyre from the
Prophet who said: "Refrain from seven fatal acts." The
companions and disciples of the Prophet, (ashab) asked him what
these acts were. The Prophet enumerated them as follows:
Attributing a partner to God which is an act of

sirk: sorcery; persuading somebody to kill a
person unjustly; to live on interest; to make use
of the possessions of orphans; to flee during the
time of war; to accuse aninnocent woman of
adultery.
After having quoted this traditon, NiyazT-i MisrT adds that
those who commit these seven vices belong to the community

403
(u m m e t ) of VanT.
402
Ibid.. fol. 43b.
403
Ibid., fol. 43b.
178
VanI Efendi and Sabbatai Sevi
Having briefly examined the views of NiyazT-i Mi§rl about

Van! Efendi, let us now turn to the relationship between VSnX
and another prominent figure in the religious history of the
period, namely, Sabbatai Sevi (1626-1676), the leader of a Jewish
messianic movement which took place during the third stage of the
KadTzadeli movement in the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, we should
also refer to Sabbatai Sevi for a more complete understanding ofr

404
the 5a<£izadeli movement.
May 31, 1665, the date when Sabbatai proclaimed himself the.
messiah, marks the formal commencement of the Sabbatian

405
movement. In September 1665, Turkish authorities arrested
Sabbatai and brought him before the imperial court, while the
sultan watched the proceedings behind a kafes (a latticed

406
alcove). Along with thêvhSiislam. the kavmakam of Edirne
and several high government officials, VanT Meljmed Efendi. too,

407
attended this meeting.
404
My account of the Sabbatian movement is based on
Gerschom Scholem’s book Sabbatai Sevi: The Mvstical Messiah,
trans. R. J. Werblowsky (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1975).
405
Ibid., 205.
406
Ibid., 673-674. Schoiem notes that his source Galante
translated the relevant sections from the books of 'AbdT Pa?a and
M. Rasid, two Turkish historians who gave accounts of this
event. Rasid is not exactly a contemporary and, in fact,
probably borrows from earlier sources. See Galante, Histoire des
Juifs d'Anatolie, vol.l, Les Juifs d'Izmir (Smvrne). 250-252.
407
Schoiem, Sabbatai. 675-677. For kavmakam pasa. see
Pakalm, Sozluk. 2:219-222.
179
In the interrogation, Sabbatai denied having nade messianic
claims. The officials of the council then gave him a choice: he
would either accept Islam or would be put to death. Finally,
Sabbatai accepted Islam. He took the name of 'Aziz Mehmed Efendi
and was appointed as kaoicibasi (the head of the gate-keepers in
the palace) with a daily pension of. 150 aspers from the
government. (September 1666).

Several of his disciples as well
408
as his wife apostatized after him.
Scholem notes that both the sultan and Van! Efendi
protected Sabbatai and treated him with sympathy. Moreover, he
even mentions a Donme manuscriptwhich indicates that VSnT Efendi-
converted to the Jewish faith. This information is certainly
fallacious, but may indicate that V5nT Efendi had closer
affiliations with Sabbatai after the conversion of the latter to

409
Islamic faith.
Scholem, also quotes an interesting passage from Rycaut
according to which Sabbatai
passed his time devoutly at the Ottoman Court

educated at the Feet of the learned Gamaliel of
the Turkish Law...Vani Efendi— To this Master
Sabbatai was a most docile scholar, and profited,
as we may imagine, beyond measure in the Turkish
Doctrine while Vani too learned something of the
Jewish rites from his new disciple. 410
408
Scholem, Sabbatai. 678-681. For kaoicibasi. see
Pakalm, Sozluk. 2:167-169. In his description of Sabbatai’s
conversion to Islamic faith, Galante mistakenly mentions Vani
Efendi as the mufti. Galante , Histoire des Juifs d*Anatolie.
vol.l, Les Juifs d*Izmir(Smvrne). 250.
409
Scholem, Sabbatai. 727.
410
Paul Rycaut.The History of the Turkish Empire from the
Year 1623 to the Year 1677 (London, 1680), 200-219; quoted in
Scholem, Sabbatai, 727.
1rtA
iOU
One detects a distant parallel between the above-sentioned
accounts and the words of Niyazi-i MisrI about VSnl Efendi. In
some of his risSles. the great Halvetl mystic accuses VSni Efendi
of being a source of disorder and belonging to a false (baîl)
mezheb. Along with these, he claims that Vani, as preacher in
the palace, gave way to debauchery among the royal princes and
411
made them Jewish. This last accusation of Vani by Niyazi-i
Mi§rl is obviously an exaggeration. Nonetheless, it shows that
Van! Efendi was somewhat familiar with Jewish faith and rites/
Probably, despite the double-faced behavior of the Sabbatians,
VanT Efendi believed that their conversion was sincere, or that
he could attract them to Islamic faith by teaching them more
about it. In any case, Van! Efendi showed his best effort in
order to convert as many Jews to Islam as possible. The easiest
way to achieve this would be through contact with Jewish belief

and customs.
In September 1672, Sabbatai was arrested by Turkish
authorities. He was saved from execution thanks to his strong
supporters in the palace, the mother of Helmed IV and Vani
Efendi. Instead, he ended up with exile in the Morea.

Sabbatai
412
died as a political prisoner in exile on September 17, 1676.
411
N. MisrI, Turuk. fol. 123a.
412 •
Scholem, Sabbatai. 874, 877, 914.
Dr.John Covel, who was chaplain to the British embassy in
Istanbul in 1670, describes Vani as a "celebrated preacher" in
Meljmed IV’s court. He also refers to Sabbatai Sevi andVani
Efendi’s contribution to fanaticism in the Ottoman Empire:
As in other parts of- Europe, fanatical preaching

was rife at this time, 'anld in Turkey we find also
Sabatai Sevi, who tried to make himself out to be
the Messiah, and whose followers exist - to this
day. Vani attacked him and'tried to convert the
Jews to Mahommedanism. He was very instrumental
in putting down the use of wine, and before the
standard of the Turkish army he prayed with
fanatical enthusiasm. 413
Apparently, the confluence of the Sabbatian movement and
the third stage of the Ela^Tzadeli movement was not purely
coincidental. In the above paragraphs, we have seen the mutual
influence of Sabbatai and Vani Efendi'l Probably, the two

/
movements were a manifestation of the heightened religious
sensitivity in the seventeenth century which European historians
have noted. In the Ottoman case, this religious zeal may have
been the response to the political, economic and moral disruption

of the time.
413
Covel, "Extracts," 268-269.
182
PART III
THE MATTERS OF DISPUTE BETWEEN THE SUFIS AMD THE KADIZADELIS
CHAPTER VI I
MATTERS RELATED TO SUFI THOUGHT AMD PRACTICES
183
The Matters of Controversy
In enumerating the controversial issues which led to the
KadTzadeli movement, I have mainly referred to Katib Celebi’s
MTzan and Na'Tma’s Tarxh. As we have already stated in the
Introduction, Katib Celebi himself has been lâglzade’s student.
His information is therefore for the most part original. Katib
Celebi deals with the controversial issues one by one, refers to
the views of
some well-known scholars on these subjects and
414
expresses his own opinion as well. Xa'Tma, in his description
of the dispute between £a<JTzade and Sivasi, mainly resorts to
Katib Celebi, but,unlike him, does not discuss all of these
issues separately. As we have seen in examining the movement,
Xa'Tma relates the clashes between the Kadlzadelis and the
Halvetl §ufls on subjects such as music, devran and raks. the
performance of zikr and innovations. He also mentions KadTzade’s
involvement in the imperial ban on

tobacco-smoking and the
415 ’
demolition of the coffee-houses in the empire. In Part III, I
will study those issues which are cited by both Katib Celebi and
Xa'Ima.
In their evaluations of the dispute, these two historians
agree that KadTzade and Sivasi aimed to win fame by engaging in
an unending quarrel. Xa'Tma has a clearly negative approach to

416
the 5adTzadelis. As for Katib Celebi, he avoids to take sides
414
Katib Celebi, Balance. 33-124.
415
Xa'Tma, TarTh. 3:158-163; 5:56-59; 5:62-63; 6:218-227.
416 57
For Xa'Tma’s view of the dispute see -section called

"Ottoman Chronicles" in the Introduction.
184
in t h a t
controversy, and advices moderation. He describes the contention
between Kadlzade and Sivasi in a separate chapter of his work,
but does not always specify the views of the two opponent sevhs
417 u
on the controversial issues.
My examination of the matters of dispute will be primarily
based upon the works written by the Kadlzadelis and the §ufxs.
Unfortunately, not all issues are always discussed by the two
opponent sides. Possibly, on certain subjects both Kadlzade and
Sivasi expressed their views, but the work of one side was lost ,
in time. It could also be that the dispute remained on the level
of oral culture.
As we shall see, many of these issues under dispute were
not specific to the time of the Kadlzadelis, but had their
origins in Islamic history. The 55<jizadelis managed to rekindle
these old issues and mobilized certain groups as their supporters
in order to start a move'ment. Their ultimate purpose was to
apply the principle of el-emr bi’l-ma'ruf ve’l-nehv 'ani*1 -miinker
and to realize serT'at-minded reform in the Ottoman Empire.
I will examine the controversial issues which lea to the
KSdTzadeli movement under the following headings:
Matters Related to $ufT Thought and Practices
Music
Devran and Raks (Dance) ^
The Performance of Zikr
417
Katib Celebi; Balance. 132-137.
185
Matters Related to Social and Political Life
Coffee and Tobacco
Bribery
Shaking Hands and Bowing
Matters Related to Religious Beliefs and Practices
Invoking Blessings upon the Prophet and his Companions
The Melodic Recitation of the Qur’an, the Call to Prayer and

Eulogy for the Prophet
The Performance of Supererogatory Prayers in Congregation '

el-emr bi'l-ma'ruf ve*l-nehv *ani*1 -munker
Innovations
Studying the Rational Sciences and Mathematics

The Faith of Pharaoh
The Malediction of Yezld
The Life of Hizir
The Faith of the Prophet's Parents

t
The Controversy on $eyh MuhyTddTn Ibn 'ArabT

Visiting Tombs
186
Music
In Islam, religious music developed during the first half

of the ninth century. By choosing the word sema* instead of
other words to denote music (giha*. tegannl. elhan. telhln). the
Sufis indicated their difference from people who run after

418
amusements and play 1 ehl-i lehv ve la*b).
Serna' has a broader meaning than music in §ufism. "It
means the listening to music, singing, chanting and measured''
recitation in order to produce religious emotion andecstasy

419
(wad.id) and also such performances by voice or instrument."
Indeed, all musical sounds as well as those which are not
pleasant and rhythmic are included in the sema *. Accordingly, a
peddlar’s voice as well as an ecstatic cry are in this category.
As a result of the ecstasy which the sema* produces in the
performer or the listener, the Sufi attains spiritual

knowledge
420
(ma'rifet. *irfan and kesf) and reaches mystic states (hal).
Let us first examine the views of BrigivI and filaÎzade on
music. In their objection to g ina’. both of them quote verse
31:6 from the Kur’an: "Some there are who would gladly pay for a
frivolous tale, so that in their ignorance they may mislead
418
Suleyman Uludag, Islam Acismdan Musiki ve Sema
(Istanbul: irfan Matbaasi, 1976), 219-220.
2
419 See El, s.v. "Sama*, by D. B. Macdonald; and IA,
1966 ed., s.v. "Sema*," by Tahsin Yazici.
420
See Tahsin Yazici, "Mevlana Devrinde Sema,”
Sarkivat Mecmuasi 5 (1964) : 137.
187
others front the path of Allah and make game of it. For these we
421
have prepared a shameful punishment." BirgivI states that Ibn
'Abbasinterprets the words "lehvu’l-hadls" in this verse as
songs (sarki ve tflrfeu).According to KagI BeyzavT, "lehvu’l-
hadls" means empty words which hinder people from necessary
deeds.
In his work irsadu *1-'Ukul. Kadlzade also quotes verse
31:7. "When Our revelations are recited to them, they turn their
backs in scorn, as though they never heard them: as though
their ears were sealed." Kadlzade states that according to
VahidT and many other commentators, the

expression "lehvii’l--
422
hadls" (frivolous tale) in verse 31:6 means g m a * . BirgivI
and Kadlzade also quote" a tradition of the Prophet recorded by
Ebu Davud and Beyhakl and reported by Ibn Mes'ud: "Just like
water makes broad-beans green, music freshens discord and

423
enmity."
)
BirgivI’s work, much admired among the Kadlzadelis, makes
use of various other well-known books such as Tatarhanive.
according to which singing is canonically unlawful in all
421
BirgivI, Tarlkat. 336; $a<jlzade, irsad. fol. 60a.
422
Kadlzade, irsad. fol. 60a. The commentator
Ebu’l-Hasan 'All b. Ahmed el-Vahiidl (d. 467/1075) wrote the
work entitled Tefsxru’1-VecIz.
423
BirgivI, Tarlkat, 337; Kadlzade, Irsad. fol. 62a.
This, tradition is not a strong one. See Uludag, Islam Acismdan
Musiki ve Sena. 150.
188
424
religions. In the work entitled Zivadat. ImSm Muhammed states
that the act of bequeathing to singers and musicians is a sin in

425
Islam and other religions.
BirgivI points out that it is forbidden to sing songs with
the purpose of amusement except in feasts and weddings. He also
criticizes the practices of the Sufis of his time who sing and
perform the zikr melodically in mosques and in banquets inviting
"impudent youths" to their gatherings. In his view, the
blameworthy nature of such behavior

is even more pronounced'
426
since the Sufis consider their acts as worship. BirgivI also
warns the pious Muslims to refrain from listening to musical
instruments such as drums, (tabl). string instruments Isaz.
sestar, tambura. kopuz. ceng and kanun).

zurna (a primitive
427
double-reed instrument) and nev ( a reed flute).
As for Kadlzade, in his work irsadu’1- 'Uldil. he enumerates
some "vices" with which music is associated. In his view,
listening to songs leads one to get accustomed to empty and
meaningless words,
deviation from the right path and some bad
428
habits such as drinking and gambling.
424
Tatarhanive: a book of fetava compiled by ‘Slim b.
‘Ala'addln el-ljanefI upon the order of Tatarhan (d. soon after
752/1351) who was a nobleman at Muhammed II Tuglak’s (724/1324-
752/1351) court in India.
425
Ziyadat: a work by Imam Muhammed es-§eybanl
id. 189/805), a well-known scholar of HanefI Law.
426
BirgivI, Tarlkat. 338.
427
BirgivI, Risale-i BirgivI Mehmed Efendi. fol,. 27; also
see fônevl, Serh-i BirgivI li’l-Konevl. fol. 54.
428
$adlzade, Irsad. fols. 60b-61a.
189
The issue of whether it is permissible to chant poems in
order to reduce loneliness is under dispute. EkmeleddTn in

429
Hidaye Serhi and Serahsi note that this practice is accepted.
Despite his negative views about music, Ka<jTzade considers it
permissible on some occassions, . e - g b e a t i n g drums and singing

430
songs in marriages. As we shall see in the relevant section,
according to $adTzade. melodic recitation of the Kur’an is
allowed provided that

it does not change the meaning and
431
pronunciation of the words.
ilstiivanl Efendi supports his views on music by referring to
some well-known books on this subject. According to a book
entitled Cevahir. it is unlawful in religion to sing and listen

432
to songs. The book entitled Havlii' 1-Kudsive and Ibnii’l-Hac
in Medhal. describe the impermissible practices concerning

433
music. These are, playing the det' Itambourine with cymbals),
the diidiik (flute) and the tabl (drum), dancing, tearing one's
clothes and crying out during the recitation of the ICur’an.

429
Ibid., fol. 170b. EkmeleddTn Muhammed b. Mahmud
el-BabertT (d. 786/1384) wrote a commentary on BurhaneddTn
el-Merginanx’s (d. 593/1197) work Hidave: Ebu Bekir Muhammed
b. Ahmed es-SerahsI (d. 483/1090) is a great scholar of HanefT
law.
430
KadTzade, irsad. fol. 157a.
431
Ibid., fol. 171a.
432
iistiivanl, Feva' id. ..Fera* id. fol. 80b. Cevahiru’1-
Fikh fi'l-FurG': a work by NizameddTn b. BurhaneddTn
el-Merginanl.
433
(JstuvanT, Fev *aid... Fera *id. fol. 81b. HavTu *1-Kuds~
ft*1-ruru': a work by KadT Cemaieddln Ahmed b. Mehmed b. Mahmud
b. Seyyid el-GaznevT (d. 593/1197). For Ibnu’l Hac, see note 253.
190
Muhammed b. Ebu Bekir er-RSzi mentions them in his commentary on
434
Yekulu*1-*Abd. According to ifstuvanT Efendi, it is unlawful
in religion to recite the ezan ( the call to prayer) and to
perform the ikame (commencing the ritual worship, i.e., salat)
melodically by distorting the words and meaning. UstiivanT Efendi
states that Ibn Hiimam in Hidgve Serfri mentions the practice of

435
teganni as canonically unlawful in religion.
As for the §ufTs, they defended the lawfulness of music and

436
devran in their works. The HalvetT $eyh Siinbiil Sinan (d.;
935/1529) and his disciples performed the devran in the rati)} or
Ayasofya mosque following his sermon on Fridays. A medrese
teacher by the name of Sari Giirz Nureddln (d. 927/1520-21)
opposed this practice trying to stop the dervishes, but his
attempt was unsuccessful. After this event, Sunbul Sinan wrote

437
his risale defending zikr and devran. None of the HalvetT
Sufi seyhs who were adversaries of the Kadlzadelis discuss the
434
UstiivanT, Feva* id...Fera’id. fol. 81a; UstiivanT,
'Aka1 id. fol. 133b. Yekulu*1-'Abd is a poem written by
SiraceddTn 'All b. 'Osman el-u$T (d. 575/1179) on the principles
of religion.
435
UstiivanT, 'ilmihal. fol. 53b. Ibn Hiimam KemaleddTn
Muhammed b. ‘Abdiilvahid (d. 860/1456). His commentary on Hidave
is entitled Fethii*l-Kadlr. For Hidave see note 350.
436
See, for example, AnJfaravI Busuhl isma'Tl Efendi (d.
1041/1631 ), Huccetu*s-Sema‘ (Bulak, 1256/1840-41). Sunbul Sinan
Efendi (d. 935/1529).Risgletii’t-Tahkik~ve. Suleymaniye L., MS.
Esad Efendi 1761.
437
See Tahsin Yazici, "Fetihten Sonra Istanbul’da ilk
Halveti Seyhleri: Celebi Muhammed Cemaieddin, Sunbul Sinan ve
Merkez Efendi,", 2 (1956): 102.
Is ta n b u l 5>SA'tusO 'PergiSi
191
subject of music separately, however. Only 'Abdulahad Nurx
Efendi treats the issue of lehv (amusement or play) and states
that some kinds of it are permitted in religion. He quotes
traditions of the Prophet in order to support his point.
According to a tradition recorded by Buhari and related by 'Ai$e,
the wife of the Prophet had attended the marriage of a girl
brought up in the household and married off to a man from the

438
Ensar. When 'Ai?e returned home, the Prophet said to her:
"Weren’t there people with you who were amusing themselves?

439 '
Indeed, the Ensar like entertainment."
In his risale. 'Abdulahad Efendi states that some
traditions have an exaggerated style for the purpose of
accentuating the meaning. As an example, he quotes a tradition

✓
which disapproves of amusement. (melahTi: "Listening to an
amusement is a sin, sitting at such a gathering is a vice and

440
taking pleasure in it is an act of infidelity." ‘Abdulahad
i
438
Ensar: those inhabitants of Medina who invited the
Prophet Muhammad and his adherents to their city, and were the
first to take up arms on behalf of Islam. Redhouse. 64.
439
Cited in A. Nuri, Deveran. 94.
440
There are examples of such traditions in
*ilmG’l-hadls. In a tradition which was fabricated by the
opponents of music, the Prophet said: "I was dispatched by God
in order to break the musical instruments." It is held that
"breaking" (kesr) in this tradition should not be understood
literally. The purpose of using it is to emphasize the
prohibition of musical instruments. See Uludag, tglam Acismaan
Musiki ve Sema. 146-148.
192
Efendi concludes that this tradition does not indicate a definite
statement but a warning by referring to such sources as Kadi Hah

441 ' ' “
and Tatarhaniye. Moreover, being supplied by only one person,
- 442
(haber-i vahid). it is not a reliable source.
441
For £ad£ Han and Tatarhanive. see notes 253 and 424.
442 " °
A. NurT, Deveran, 98.
193
Devran and Rafcs (Dance)
Some Ottoman *ulema* such as the sevhuljglaiag

y Kemal
Pa§azade (d. S4C/1534) and Ebussu'ud Efendi (d. 982/1574) gave
fetx'as against the whirling of the ‘Sufis out of ecstasy. While
they objected to such motions considering them as rafcs (dancing),
the Sufis, in turn, defended their sema* and devran. Another
Ottoman seyhulislam. Zenbllli 'All Cemall Efendi (d. 932/1525)
considered the
devran permissible in a risale which I will,
443
examine below. This work is relevant for our purposes since
444
Kadlzade objected to it in his book irsadu*1-'tlkul.
Zenbllli 'AIT Cemall Efendi first refers to some sources
which consider the devran impermissible. According to Cami *u *1-

445
retava, the devran of the Sufis is unlawful•(haram). It is
improper for people to be present at such gatherings. Moreover,•
he who considers an act which is haram as ,canonically lawful
(helal) becomes an infidel. The ftar.efl scholar PezdevI also

446
regards the devran as an unbecoming act which is haram.
443
ZenbTlli 'AIT Cemall Efendi, Deveran-i SufTvenin
CevSzina Da*ir Risale. Suleymaniye L., MS. M. Arif-M.Murad 221/2,
fois. 13a-18a. As a disciple of §ey^ Mu§li&uddin b. Vefa
(d. 896/1491), 'All Cemall naturally defended the dances of the
Sufis in his risale. See Uzuncarsili, Osaanli Devletinin ilmive
Teskilati, 2d ed. (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1984),
232-233.
444
&adlzade, irsad. fols. 23b-26a.
445
'All Cemall, Risale. fol. 13b. Cami 'ii*1-Fetava: a
work by îrk Emre el-Hamidl el-Hanefi (d. 870/1465).
44S
'All CemalT, Risale. fol. 14a. .'All b. Muhammed
el-Pezdevi (d. 482/1089): a Hanefl scholar of theology known as
"the glory of Islam.”
194
'All Cemall states that those who oppose the devran
describe the turning of the §ufls as la'b (an amusement or play)
which many consider to be forbidden in religion as we have just
discussed, likening it to the dance invented by SamirT. They
also quote a tradition of the Prophet in order to prove their
point: "He who tries to resemble a community belongs to that

447
community."
'All Cemall then mentions the view in Bezzazive which runs
counter to the above-mentioned views. According to this source
even though we may accept the devran as a play, it is the kind of
play which is permissible in religion. He then quotes the verse.
"Say: it was surely Allah who revealed them. Then leave them to
448
amuse themselves with foolish chatter” (6:91).
In his counter-argument, 'AIT Cemall first disagrees with
the author of Cami 'ti*1-Fetava on the subject of devran. He notes
that the view 'He who considers th£ devran as lawful in religion-
becomes an infidel’ is merely false. If one accepted this view,
one would have to blame Imam ?afi'T with infidelity since he

affirmed the practice of devran.
While performing the act of turning, the §ufis consider
themselves similar to the pilgrims circumambulating the Ea'be and
not to the polytheists. Indeed, the devran does not resemble the
447
'All CemalT, Risale. fol. 14a. SamirT lived during
the time of the prophet Moses and worshipped the calf in the
dance which he invented.
448
'All CemalT, Risale. fol. 15a. For Fet5v5-i
Bezzazive.see note 253.
195
rafrs which Samiri has invented. What SamirT did was to worship
the calf in order to attribute a partner to God. The dervishes,

449
however, worship God and confirm His unity during the devran.
In some exceptional cases, even dancing and music such as beating
arums are permitted,

e.g., on the way to pilgrimage, during
450
festive occasions and war.
Contrary to 'AIT CemalT,who is in favor of the Sufis’
dances, the sevhulislams Kemai Pasazade and Ebussu’ud Efendi
reject them. In a risale. Kemal Pasazade argues that according
to icaa'. raks and sema* are canonically unlawful (haram). In
his view, it is permissible to imprison or exile the Sufis who.
commit these acts. In his fetava. Ebussu’ud Efendi is similarly

451
harsh towards the Sufis who perform the raks and devran.
The mystics answered those who opposed their semS'. When
BelgradI MiinTrl Efendi (d. 1029/1619-20) dispatched a letter to
the seyhs !in Istanbul opposing their practices of sema’. for
instance, LamekanI Efendi (d. 1034/1625), a sevh of the Bayramiye

452
order, answered him in a letter which I will examine below.
449
’.All Cemall, RisSle. fois. i5a-16a.
450
451
KemSl Pasazade, RisSle fl Tahklki*r-Raks. Suleymaniye
L., MS. Murad Buhari 323, fol. 212. For Ebussu’ud Efendi’s views
see Duzdag, Ebussuud Efendi. 83-38.
452
LamekanI guseyin Efendi, BelgradI Sevh Munir!
Efendi’nin Istanbul Sevhlerine Karsi t'tirazianna T.amekanT
Htiseyin Efendi*nin Cevaplarx. Topkapi Palace L., MS. H. 1783/5,
fols. 18a-20b.
196
Following an introductory section on greetings and prayers-.
LamekanI Efendi mentions his mystical activities which are
friendly conversations (musahabe). reading (mfitalata ) and
praising God Izikrullah). LamekanI Efendi states that in his
religious order, the Practices, of.sema* and devran do not take
place. Other dervishes and sevhs however, perform these
practices in mosques and lodges. Moreover, many notable members
of the 'ulema* of his time have not forbidden the sema'. but have
taken pleasure in listening to music and have fallen into divine

/
ecstasy. Therefore, LamekanI Efendi advises toleration in
matters related to the spiritual ecstasy and whirling of the

453
dervishes.
LamekanI Efendi then brings forth some evidence in order to
support his point. According to the. general consensus of
reporters, the Prophet did not forbid the sema' and raks of the
eshab-i suffa but allowed his wife 'Aise watch the dances of the
454 ; d
Abyssinians. Moreover, when he uttered wor.s which made some
members of the eshab joyous, they stood up in his presence and
started to whirl in full ecstasy. Rather than prohibiting this

455
act, the Prophet expressed his exhileration.
453
Ibid., fol. 18a.
454
Eshap-i suffa: those poor and harmless companions of
the Prophet who lived in the hall (ûffa) of the mosque in
Medina and continued their studies. Among them were Ibn Mes'ud
(d. 32/652-53), Ibn 'Omer (d. 73/693) and ,Ebu Hurevre
(d. 58/678). See Ahmet Debbagoglu and tsmail Kara, eds. ,
Ansiklopedik Biivuk islam ilmihali (Istanbul: Dergah Yavmlari.
1979), 136-137.
455
LamekanI, Cevao. fol. 18b.
197
g The perfect men who belong to the community of the Prophet
•1 and who experience divine love and mysteries in their hearts,
si
U have not prohibited the seaa'. Indeed, they have based their
j]
|] entrance and career in a religious order fsfilgk) upon this
practice hoping that it may help them' acquire the knowledge of

‘456
Divine Providence (*ilm-i ledtin). LamekanI Efendi then states
that he heard about the writings and efforts of some people
against the practice of sema *. In his view, the dervishes as a
group are not equal within themselves. Those who have reached
/
divine pleasures and those who have not are different in their
rank and conditions. The Sur'anic verse "Are the wise and
ignorant equal"? (39:9) confirms this point. He then quotes a'
tradition of the Prophet: "He who imitates a group is one of
them," mentioning that those §ufls who lack spiritual knowledge
try to resemble the knowledgeable ones by learning from them. It
becomes evident that LamekanI Efendi considers such efforts of

imitation as virtuous since they lead to ‘ilm-i ledun. Besides,
the words of their opponents would not lead the Sufis to abandon
457
their practices which they followed persistently.
'Abdulmecld Sivasi Efendi, too, deals with the dances of

458
the Sufis in his works. By referring to Ibn Hacer, he says
that neither in the Kur’an nor among the traditions of the

459
Prophet is there any evidence disproving sema* and rak§.
456
457
’ 458
Sivasi, Nesavih. fols. 45a-46a.
459
Ibn Hacerii’l-AskalanT (d. 852/1449): a renowned Arab
scholar of fikh.
198
Sivasi Efendi adds that it is impossible to declare the
unlawfulnes of sema* and raks on the basis of icma' and frivas
since various reasons can be cited to approve the prohibition
or affirmation of this practice. For example, some people draw a
similarity between the turning of the §ufis in the circle of zikr
and the movement of infidels. One can, however, also compare
this Sufi practice with the revolving of angels around the bevt-i
460
ma'inur or with Muslims circumambulating the Ka'be.
At this point, Sivasi Efendi reminds the reader of an
important matter. Both the ‘ulema’ and the Sufis agree that any
act which includes hypocrisy is equal to a vice or even tq
polytheism. If feelings of hypocrisy (rival) lead to sema *. this
practice becomes blasphemous. SivasT Efendi continues his
argument by saying that such feelings are dependent on the heart.
Only these who penetrate into the invisible world and the
spiritual essence can understand these matters. Such people are

I
known as the eshab-i kul~o. People who only deal with the
external meaning of things (eshab-i zahir) cannot understand the

461
Sufi states.
'Abdiilmecld SivasT also quotes the verse "Do not falsely
declare: 'This is lawful, and this is forbidden,’ in order to
invent a falsehood about Allah. Those who invent falsehoods
about Allah shall never prosper" (16:116) in order to verify his
460
Beyt-i ma'mur: the prototype of the Ka'be in the seventh
heaven. See Redhouse. 167.
461
Sivasi, Nesavih. fol. 45b.
199
words. According to Sivasi Efendi, it is appropriate to consider
an act lawful in religion unless there is a definite proof for
its unlawfulness. Therefore, the practices of sena' and raks,
too, should be considered permissible (mubah). Moreover, many of
the books of Safi'is, MalikTs and Hsuibells permit sema' and rakg.
Some ofthe sahabe and tabi’In have themselves performed this

462
practice. Blaming the performers of these acts with blasphemy
would mean accusing such great men as Ebu Talib el-Mekkl (d.
386/996), 'Omer es-Suhreverdl (d. 632/1234) and Imam Gazall (d./
505/1111) who have all regarded sema' and raks permissible.
According to Sivasi Efendi, the performance of sema' and.
raks should be forbidden for common people since young people and
children may turn this practice into a game tla'b) as opposed to
the Sufis who dance out of mystical ecstasy. A general
permission or a prohibition is not appropriate since one should

think of the ordinary people and the Sufis separately in this
463
matter.
In his risale. 'Abdulahad Efendi points out that neither
the Prophet nor the four imams have brought definite proofs for
the lawfulness or the unlawfulness of devran. The reason is that
this practice did not exist in their time. There have been
disputes among the four imams. however, on the pemissibility of
raks. Some 'ulema’ compared the devran with raks and decided on
the unlawfulness of the former-.
462
Ibid., fols. 45b-46a; Sivasi, Biza'at. fols. 41a-41b;
Tabi'In: Muslims who lived after the death of the Prophet but
had conversed with at least one of his companions. Redhouse.
1074.
463 Sivasi, -Vesgvih. fol. 46a.
200
In his argument, 'Abdiilahad Efendi first quotes the names
ofsome sevhs and 8 ulema* who considered the devran as
permissible (mubah). Among them were Imam Gazall (d. 505/111),
CelaleddXn es-Siiyuti (d. 911/1505), Davud-i Kayseri (d.

\
\: 751/1350), Cami1 (898/1492), . Seyhulislam 'All Cemall (d.
932/1525 ), Seyhiiiislam Sa'di Efendi (d. 945/1538) and §eyi}ulislam
Efdalzade Hamldeddln (d. 908/1502). 'Abdulahad Efendi summarizes

464
the views of these men of religion as follows:
First of all, it is not proper to call the devran by the

465 -
name of raks. In dictionaries, rak^ is defined as graceful
movements with the purpose of plav.(la'b). In usage, raks is
described as the play in which there are dances of womenand

466
musical instruments such as mizaar. evtar and yenarnare.
'Abdiilahad Efendi quotes from a book entitled TavzTh in order to

467
support his views.
Secondly, it is not permitted to compare the devran and the
raks. According to the commentaries on Menar. when two things

468
are compared, there should be a similarity between them. This
464
A.Xurl, Deveran. 93. Among the Sufi sevhs whom I have
mentioned only A.NurX Efendi refers to Zenbllli 'Air Cemall.
465
As we have seen, contrary to A. Xurl, Sivasi Efendi
uses the words sema' and raks interchangeably. Sivasi, Xesavih.
fols. 45b-46a.
466
CehSroare: percussion instrument made of hard wood
and used in dance music; evtar: strings of a musical instrument;
mizmar: a kind of flute or pipe. Redhouse. 242, 355, 782.
467
I'avzih: a work by the Persian scholar Sa'deddln
Mes'ud b. 'Omer et-Taftazanl (d. 791/1389) on fikh.
468
Menard*1-Envar: a work by Hafizeddin Ebl’l Berekat
'Abdullah b. Aljmed en-Nesefl (d. 710/1310), a $anefl scholar of
flkh and kelam.
201
is necessary for the health of the comparison. Since, devr and
raks are not identical in meaning, their comparison is not
proper. Furthermore, the unlawfulness of ral^ in religion has
not been proven. Therefore,

one cannot bring a definite proof
469
for the prohibition of devr either.
A. Nurl Efendi then quotes a tradition recorded by Buharl

470
and Muslim and narrated by 'Ai$e. This tradition, on the
basis of which the *ulema’ reached the conclusion that la'b and
raks are lawful, is about the dances of Beni Erfide in the
mescld. According to the sources, these people were probably the
ancestors of the Abyssinians. When the Prophet saw them, he
said: "0 Beni Erfide! Continue your dance so that the People of
the Book know that there is tolerance (fushat) in our religion.”
A. Nurl Efendi also states that according to Ibn Melek and other
commentators, there is permission for la’b in this tradition when
it is free from lehv (useless and unnecessary deeds).

<
'Abdiilahad Efendi then refers to ihva-i 'Uluinu’d-DTn by
Imam Gazall, 'Umde. Imam Suyiitl’s Fetava-i Hadisive and
Celaleddln ed-Dewanl’s commentary on Hevakil in order to support

471
the devran of the Sufis. Celaleddln ed-Bewanl draws a
469
A. Nurl Efendi, Deveran. 93-94.
470
Ibid., 93. Some reliable sources narrate different
versions of this tradition. These sources are Bujiarx, Muslim,
Nese’I. Miisned-i Ahmed and Ebu Davud. See uludaf, Islam
Acismdan Musiki ve Sema.75-85.
471
1 Umdetu*1-'Aka *id: a work by ?afi?eddln Ebi’1-Berekat
'Abdullah b. Ahmed en-Hesefl (d. 710/1310); Fetava-i Hadisive:
the collection of fetava by Celaleddln es-Siiyuti (d. 911/1505);
Heyakilii’n-N'ur: a work by Suhreverdl el-Maktul (d. 587/1191);
Celaleddln ed-Dewanl (d. 908/1502-3) wrote a commentary on this
book.
202
similarity between the movements of a §ufl in the devran and the
revolving of the heavenly bodies. It is only by perpetual motion
that celestialbodies benefit from God’s light.Likewise, raks
and devr bring out ecstatic states in the mystic.

As a result of
472
this, he feels the divine light ,of .God in his heart.
BirgivI Meijmed Efendi, the intellectual mentor of the
Kadlzadelis, discusses the subject of devran and raks as well,
but, of course, from a very different perspective. In his work
Tarlkat-i Muhammediye, he
considers the regular and irregular
473
movements of the body as la'b. BirgivI gives dancing as an
example for such movements. Therefore, they should be regarded
as unlawful. In order to support his views, BirgivI refers to
the views of some authorities on this subject. • Among them are

474
TurtusI, Imam BezzazI, Imam Kurtubl and $eyh Zemahserl. In
his arguments, BirgivI does not differentiate the dances of the
Sufis from other kinds of movements.

I
Kadlzade Meljmed Efendi expresses his views against la'b.
raks and devran in his works. He does not, however, make a clear
475
differentiation between these terms. He quotes the following
Kur’anic verses in order to describe the acts of the Sufis who
472
A. Nurl Efendi, Deveran. 94-95.
473
BirgivI, Tarlkat. 469-470.
4 i4
TurtusI, Ibn Ebl Bandaka (d. 520/1126 or 525/1131):
an Arab scholar of law and t.radition; for Imam BezzazI see note
253 ; Kurtubl, §emseddln Muhammed b. Ahmed (d. 671/1272): a
MaiikI scholar of tradition; for Zemahserl see note 164.
475
Kadlzade, Devran, fol. 72b.
203
perform raks and devran: "It was not in sport that We made the
heavens and the earth and all that lies between them" (21:16); "I
created mankind and the jinn in order that they might worship me"
(51:56); "It was to reveal the truth that We created the heavens
476
and the earth and all that lies between them” (15:85). .
In his work irsadu* 1-'Ukul. Kadlz5.de refers to the same
sources on devran. which 'All CemalT cites and then refutes in
his risale. namely, the works Cami'u *i-Fetava and Bezzazive and
the scholar Pezdevl. He then defines raks and devran as futile
amusements which are not permitted in religion. Saglzade quotes
a tradition of the Prophet: "He who tries to resemble a group

477
belongs to that group." He also states that according to Imam
Kurtubl, the imams of the four mezhebs consider music and dance
unlawful in religion.
Kadlzade also states that the devran of
478
the Sufis is the same as raks which SamirT has invented.
UstiivanT Efendi expresses his views on the dances of the
Sufis in a treatise which argues that devr. raks and tegannT are
unlawful in religion. He builds his arguments on various well-
known books. UstiivanT states that the book entitled Cevahir
regards the dancing and the singing of the Sufis as unlawful. It
is not permissible to be present at such a gathering. Ustiivanl
476
Kadlzade, irsad. fol. 23b.
477 "
Ibid., fol. 24a.
478
Ibid., fol. 26a.
204
also states that singing of the Sufis accompanied by the zurna is
479
unlawful. In the work Haviu*1-Kudsive. acts such as playing
the def. dancing, tearing one’s clothes and crying out are
480
considered haram during the recitation of the Qur’an.
Ustiivanl also cites Ibn Teymiye who.points out that God did not
order the dances of the Sufis. Neither the Prophet nor the imams
481
have imposed it upon the people.
UstuvanI refers to Cami'ii’1-Fetava according to which those
who dance wearing a special dress and claiming a position for'
themselves commit
an act of slander to God. Perhaps they are
482
insane. The Prophet is not one of them. He also notes that
ZemaJjserr, in his work Kessaf. has a commentary on verse 3 in the

483
Kur’an where he regards devr and raks as haras.
Among other past authorities cited by Ustuvar.I Efendi
because they disapprove of raks are the commentary on Tuhfe, the
commentaries on Medhal by Ibnii’l-Hac, and on Yekulu’1-*Abd by
Muhammed b.
Ebii Bekir er-Hazi and Birgivl’s work Tarlkat-i
484
Muhammedive. Ibnii’l-Hac, in his commentary on Medhal. says
47S
For Cevahir. see note 432; UstiivanT, ’Aka’id. fol.
132b.
480
For Havlu’1-Kudsive, see note 433.
481
UstuvanI, ’Aka’id. fol. 133a.
482 ’
Ibid., fol. 134a. _
483
Ibid., fol. 134a. For Zemahserl see note 164.
484
Tuhfetu*1-Fukaha*: a work by 'AlS’addln Muhammed b.
Ahmed es-Semerkandl (d. 539/1144); for Medhal and Yekulu’1-’Abd
see notes 253 and 434.
205
that according to Imam-i 5'zam, it is not permissible to perform
485
the salat on places where the dances of Sufis take place.
UstuvanI notes that according to Imam §afi'T, it is incumbent
upon the governors of provinces.to prohibit those who perform the
devr and raks. In Imam Malik’s view, people present in a place
where dances of the Sufis take place.are impious (fasik) and
those who consider such practices as lawful become apostates
(milrted). According to Imam Hanbel, those who watch the dances
of Sufis cannot be accepted as valid witnesses. OstuvSnl Efendi ‘
does not mention the particular sources which he uses for these
486
citations. Finally, he quotes from 'All el-Karl saying that
many other
books apart from those mentioned here describe the
487
practices of devr and raks as unlawful.
In his work on "avoiding the innovations of the Sufis,"
Van! Efendi regards dance (raks) and playing the def as unlawful
since such actions are equal to amusement (la'b) which doeis not
488
provide any worldly or otherworldly benefit. Vani’s
489
definition of rak^ is similar to £5dizade’s. Although his
arguments on this subject are not as extensive as those of
485
Cited in UstuvanI, Feva’id..-Fer’aid. fol. 82a.
486
For the views of the imams on music and sema'. see
Uludag, Islam Acismdan Musiki ve Sema. 173-187.
487
‘All el-£arl: Nureddln 'All b. Sultan Muhammed
el-HaravI (d. 1014/1605); Ostuvanl, Feva* id...Fera’id. fol. 82a.
488
VanI, Bid 'atler. fol. 195a.
489
Cf. {CadTzade, irsad. fol. 23b.
206
Ka4Izade and Ostuvanl, he agrees with the previous two leaders of
the movement as far as his reasoning and sources are concerned.
Van! refers to the book Cevghir according to which it is unlawful

490
to sit at the gathering of Sufis who perform the devrgh. He
also quotes from Tatarhanive saying that the recitation
of the Kur’an in a gathering of dance and music is

491 •
impermissible.
Finally, let us briefly examine how Katib Celebi views the
controversy on the dances of the Sufis. In his work'
Mlzanu’! Hak, he describes the dispute

between the orthodox
492
'ulema’ and the dervishes on this subject. He refers to the
Sufis, saying:
Just as they do not.desist from whirling, so some

of the fanatically orthodox do not cease from
carping at them: the tug-of-war between the two
parties has brought them into a vicious circle.
At no time has there been a break in the chain of
contention; it has grown longer and longer. 493
i •
Katib Celebi then advises the wise men not to participate in this
disputation.
490
Ibid., fol. 195a; for Cevahir. see note 432.
491
Van!, Bid'atler. fol. 198a; for Tatarhanive. see
note 424. °
492
KStib Celebi, Balance. 42-46.
493
Ibid., 45.
207
-The Performance of Zikr
Zikr. or praising God’s name in litanies, is a principal
Sufi ritual. The performance of zikr can be aloud fzikr-i cehrl)
or silently.(zikr-i hafl). Religious orders whose spiritual
chain (silsile) reaches the Prophet through Caliph 'All, such as
the Halvetls, practice the zikr aloud. Orders which accept
Caliph Ebu 3ekir as their master in the spiritual chain, such as

494
the Nakîbendxs, practice the zikr silently. In both kinds of,
zikr. sincerity of the heart (ihlas) is essential. It is held
that only with ihlas can the §ufl attain God’s benevolence
(ihla^) and establish spiritual union with Him in the zikr.
Let us first examine JCa<jIzade Mehmed Efendi’s views on-this

/
subject. According to him, praising God’s name softens the hard
hearts. After pointing out that it is possible or permissible to
perform the gikr silently or aloud, he quotes a tradition of the

i
Prophet which describes the silent zikr as 72 times preferable to

495
the zikr performed aloud. Primarily because of his preference
for the silent zikr.Kadlzade severely criticized the HalvetTs

496
who performed the zikr aloud.
494
Mehmed ’All 'Aynl, islam Tasavvuf Tarihi. ed. H. R.
Yananli (Istanbul: Akabe Yaymlari, 1985), 65-66.
495
$a<jizade, Devran. fol. 72b.
496
See Katib Celebi, Balance, 136-137.
208
The practice of 2 ikr has rules of its own. The performer
should not rise to his feet, pound the ground or cry out loudly.
Muslim teachers consider these acts as disagreeable Imekruh). In
order to prove his views, KadTzade quotes a relevant tradition of
the Prophet: "One day, during the sermon of the Prophet,
somebody cried out and leaped. The Prophet said: 'Who
misrepresented his religion to us by crying out? If his feelings
are genuine, he made himself notorious. If they are fake, may

497
God destroy him’."
£adlzade also points out that it is forbidden in religion
to raise one’s voice (ref’u*1-savt) on such occasions as the'

498
recitation of the jfur’an, funerals, the iaza’and the hutbe.
In his risSles, Ustiivanl Efendi has sections on zikr as
well. He notes that it is a mekruh act to raise one’s voice
during a sermon and the recitation of the Kur’an. Those who

I
claim to act in that way out of mystical love or ecstasy do not
have a place in Islam. Imam Fahreddln

V
in -Fetava-i
■■ —
Kadi
» ■■
Han
1 '|J
and
sources such as Tuhfetu'1-Kulub.

the commentaries on Vikave and
499
the scholar KuhistanI disapprove of this practice.
497
Ka(jTzade, Devran. fol. 76b.
498
Ibid., fol. 77b.
499
For Fetava-i Kadi Han, see note 253; Tuhfetu*1-
Kulub: a work by Hatim b. Ibrahim el-Hamidl (d. 595/1199);
Vikave: a work by~ibrahlm el-âlebl (d. 956/1549) on fikh:
KuhistanI: the scholar §emseddln Muhammed b. Hiisameddln el-
Kuhistanl (d. 962/1555);. Ustiivanl, Kitab-i Feva*id-i Kebir.
fols. 179a-179b.
209
Usijuvani also- states that it is not permissible to praise
God aloud (cehrle zikrullah) in front of a deceased person. This
is mentioned by Ibn Humam in Fethii ’1-Kadir and in books such as

500
Tatarhanive and the commentary on the work of Tahavi.
As we have seen, according to Xadlzade, zikr is good if
certain rules are followed. Vani Efendi does not. specify such
rules, but states that the performance of the zikr aloud on
certain occasions is considered an innovation according to the

501
books of serl'at. Some of these innovations are the
performance of the following practices aloud (cehren); The
practice of zikr performed on special nights such as Rega’ib,.
Berat and Kadir and in front of the house of a deceased person;
reciting the tesblh (a litany of praise to God5 and the tehlTl
(pronouncing the profession of God’s unity by ISilaheillallah) in
gatherings, in the mosque and in funerals; reading the evrad
(portions of scripture recited at stated times) after the morning

I
prayer.
Van! Efendi agrees with gHujTzade and Ustuvani when he
states that performing the zikr aloud is a mekruh act according
to a fetva of Ebu Hanlfe (d. 150/769) and his two students, Ebu
Yusuf (d. 182/798) and Muhammed (d. 189/805). According to
500
For Ibn Humam and Tatarhanive see notes 435 and 424;
Ebu Ca'fer Ahmed b. Muhammed et-Tafcavr (d. 321/933): a ganefT
scholar of law. Here, probably his work Muhtasar fi’l-Fikh is
meant uoon yhich many commentaries have been written.
501
Vanx Efendi, Muhvx. fols. 2a-3b; RisSle-i Van!, fol.
78b.
210
this point. Books of tefslr often quote the verse "Pray to your
Lord with humility and in secret. He does not love the
502
transgressors" (7:55).
Vani Efendi then refers to Multeka according to which it is
incumbent (vacib) upon Muslims to prevent the SQfTs from
performing the
zikr aloud and from tearing their clothes while
503
listening to ginaJ(kasTde or ilahls). Such acts are forbidden
during the recitation of the Kur’an as well. They are considered
as bid*ats. Van! Efendi notes that he saw a group of people
reciting the lailaheillallah aloud in the mosque. He told them:.
”1 see you as belonging to the innovators.” He then expelled

504
them.
In his works, 'AbdulaecTd SivasI indicates the importance
of zikr by quoting the liur’anic verses "Vhen your prayers are
ended, remember Allah standing, sitting and lying down" (4:103)
and "Remember Me, then, and I will remember you . Give thanks to
505
Me and never d e n y Me" (2:152).
SivasI Efendi examines zikr in three categories: lisanl
(by the tongue), kalbl (by the heart) and ruhi (by the soul).
Zikr-i ruhl is performed by saints and prophets
502
Vani, Bid'atler. fols. 188b-189a.
503
For Multeka. see note 253.
504
Vani, Bidratler. fol. 191b.
505
SivasI, Mi ‘varti’t-Tarlk. fol. 189a.
(evliva’ ve enbiva). In zikr-i kalbl, God’s spiritual light
appears in the heart of the §ufl. In this way, the mystic
perceives the spiritual essence, the (ba£in), and travels from
the city of the heart to that of the soul. In

silent zikr
506
(zikr-i hafl).
^ the Sufi
• annihilates his self in Gcd. Sivasi
Efendi notes that in the Qur’an, too, this kind of zikr is
regarded preferable to performing the zikr aloud,, quoting the
verse "Remember your Lord deep in your soul with humility and
reverence, and without ostentation:

remember Him morning and
507 /
evening, and do not be negligent" (7:205).
In his work Neâvihii*1-Miiluk. Sivasi Efendi supports his
views on 2 ikr by quoting some relevant traditions of the Prophet.
In a tradition related by Teheran! from 'Abdullah b. ’Omer, the
Prophet said: "Hold your tongue from blaming with blasphemy
those who Derform praises to God.

People who deem.Muslims as
508
misbelievers are close to unbelief themselves."
»
In another tradition related by Ibn Hayyan, gakim and
Beyhakl from Ebu Sa'Id, the Prophet said: "Chant praises to God
509
often until people call you mad."
506
Ibid., fol. 189b.
507
Ibid., fols. 190b-192b.
508
Sivasi, N'esavih. fol. 46a.
509
Ibid., fol. 46b.
212
'Abdulahad Nur-T Efendi indicates the importance of zikr and
its connection with devran. He notes that it is permissible to
perform the zikr under all conditions. He quotes the following

510
verses from the Kur’an as evidence:
"In the creation of the heavens and earth, and in the
alternation of night and day there are signs for men of sense;
those that remember Allah standing, sitting and lying down"
(3:191) and "Do not drive away those that call on their Lord
morning and evening, seeking only to gain His favour. You are
not by any means accountable for them, nor are they accountable
for you" (6:52). A. NurT Efendi notes that during the.
performance of the zikr. the §ufT may start to dance in ecstasy.
When this happens,

he should continue the zikr so that he wins
511
over the desires of the self and the temptation of Satan.
As we have seen, both the pi^Xzadelis and the §ufls accept
the practice of zikr. Again, they agree that silent zikr is
preferable to performing the zikr aloud. While the Ka^fzadelis
consider the zikr-i cehri a disagreeable act which should be
avoided, the Sufis do not think this way. The KaqTzadelis
specify some qualifications on the zikr such as the manner of its
performance, certain occasions when zikr-i cehrT is illegal, etc.
The SufTs, on the contrary, do not agree to these restrictions. ■
510 "
A. NurT, Deveran. 95-96.
511
Ibid., 96.
213
CHAPTER VII
MATTERS RELATED TO SOCIAL AND POLITICAL LIFE
214
Coffee and Tobacco
Coffee was introducedfrom Abyssinia to Yemen and from

512
there to Istanbul about the year 947/1540. Tobacco was one of
the new plants which spread from America in the sixteenth
century.The Spanish brought the first tobacco plant to Europe

513
ir. 1559. According to Ottoman historians, it entered the
Ottoman lands around the late sixteenth and early seventeenth

514
century. As it appears, about 1060/1650, coffee and tobacco
became the subject of disputes between the HalvetT sevh .Viyazl-i
MisrT and UstuvanI Mehmed Efendi, but no written evidence has

515
remained to this day. While Vani Efendi wrote on the subject
of tobacco, no work is extant by the §adizadelis or the Sufis on
coffee-drinking. As we shall see, the dervishes adopted these
two stimulants which were suitable for the ascetic life. We can
guess that the 5 ufls, who were usually on the tolerant side in
the disputes -.-ith the Katfizadeiis, would regard coffee-drinking
and tobacco-smoking permissible in the absence of a definite
legal prohibition.
2
512 El, s.v. "JjCahwa,” by C. V. Arendok; Martin,
“Ehalwati Order,” 288.
513
The New Caxton Encyclopedia. 1969 ed., s.v. ”Tobacco.”
514
Pe?:evl gives this date as 1009/1600. PecevI, Tarlh.
1:365; According to Katib Celebi, it was 1010/1601. Katib **
Celebi, Balance. 51.
515 —
Martin, "Khalwati Order,” 289.
215
People debated over these two stimulants particularly after
516
the first coffee-houses were opened in Istanbul in 962/1554.
The historian PeqevT describes the coffee-houses as follows:
These soon attracted gentlemen of leisure, wits

and literary men seeking distraction and
amusement, who spent the time over their coffee
reading or playing ch'ess' or backgammon, while
poets submitted their latest poems for the verdict
of their acquaintances. This new institution was
jokingly called also mekteb—i Hrfgn (school of
knowledge). The coffee-house met with such
approval that it soon attracted civil servants,
kadis and professors also. 517
However, according to Na'Ima, coffee-houses were also
places where some people assembled criticizing men of high rank,
inventing fallacies about state affairs, appointments and
dismissals. Lest such gatherings lead to a conspiracy, Murad IV
patrolled the city day and night, keeping the smokers under close
518
scrutiny to the degree of tearing down the coffee-houses.
Before the reign of Murad IV, orders were issued to close
the coffee-houses during the reigns of Murad III (982/1574-
1903/1595) and Ahimed I (1012/1603-1026/1617). These measures
were short-lived and ineffective, however. Under Meljmed IV
(1058/1648-1099/1687), coffee-houses in cities except for those
in Istanbul began to function again and coffee was freely sold in

519
the streets.
516
PepevT, TarTh, 1:363.
w 2
517 Ibid., 1:364, quoted in El, s.v. "Kahwa." Arendok has
translated this passage from PepevT’s history.
518
Na'Tma, TarTh. 3:163.
519 °
Ibid., 3:161; Katib Celebi, Fezleke. 2:154-155.
216
A number of principal Ottoman historians treat the
imperial ban on the consumption of coffee and tobacco in their
books. Na'Tma relates this subject in a section called "tbtal-i
Kahvehane vs Men*-! Duhan" (The Demolition of Coffee-houses and

520
the Prohibition of'fcboczoiThis prohibition followed the great fire
of Istanbul which took place in the year 1043/1633. In
BebI'yiilevvel/September of the same year,- people distressed by
the fire began to gather in the coffee-houses in order to dismiss
their sorrow. An imperial order was issued to the effect that
the coffee-houses, which were seen as places of disaffection, be
closed down in Istanbul and other cities in the empire lest they
breed sedition in society. Only the coffee-houses in Haremeyn
(Mecca and Medina) and Egyot were exempted from this

521
prohibition. Following this decree, tobacco-smoking., was
forbidden as well.
Chroniclers such as §olakzade, Silahdar and Na'Tma
emphasize the role of KatjTzade in the imperial ban on tobacco.
Solakzade states that the preacher regarded both coffee and

522
tobacco as bad innovations (bid'at-i s e w i ’e ). In order to
become attached to Murad IV, he used his best endeavors in
declaring the illegality of tobacco, making up rational ('akli)
and traditional (nakll) evidence to support his view. To those
who objected, Ka<jTzade replied that on matters the unlawfulness
of which is not definitely proven, it is necessary to obey the

520
Na'Tma, TarTh, 3:161.
521 '
Katib Celebi, Fezleke. 2:154.
522
Solakzade.7 TarTh.
O 753.
217
ruler (ulu*1-emr). According to Na'Tma, Murad IV used gn^Xzade
as a shield when he put his strict measures into effect and

523
executed the transgressors of the prohibition.
Coffee-drinking was a popular practice among the Sufis.
The Saziliye order first adopted coffee as a beverage, followed
by theHalvetls who drank it as a stimulant to keep them awake

~ 524 -
during the halvet. While poets like Bellgl praised coffee in
the sixteenth century, some sevhiilislains gave fetvas against it
claiming that it was unlawful in religion to drink roasted coffee'

525
which became carbonized. Indeed, Ebussu'ud Efendi went so far
as to have holes pierced in the ships which brought coffee beans

526
to Istanbul, letting their loads submerge.
The following fetva by that renowned scholar is a good
example of his attitude:
0. Libertine people (ehl-i heva) assemble in coffee-houses as a
separate group playing chess and backgammon and speaking
meaningless nonsense. They do not realize that their acts
are illegal and consider coffee-drinking lawful. How should
they be treated according to the serl'at?
A. The maledictionof God, angels and all Muslims will be upon

52”
them.
523
Na'Tma, TarTh, 6:221.
524 °
Martin, "Khalwati Order,” 288.
2
525 See EX, s.v. "£ahwa." For Beligi’s poem, see "Kahve”
in Tarih ve Toolum. no.12 (Aralik 1984): 369.
526
Katib Celebi, Balance, 60.
527
Diizdaf, Ebussuud Efendi. 148-149.
218
As coffee-houses became increasingly popular in the Ottoman
Empire, there were also some sevhiilislams who issued fetvas in
favor of coffee. Bostanzade Mehmed Efendi was one of them who

528
enumerated the benefits of coffee in a rhyming fetva.
According to Solakzade, Sevhiilialam Ahlzade Huseyin Efendi

529
gave a fetva supporting the prohibition of tobacco. Yahya
Efendi (d. 1053/164-!) became sevhfil islam for the third time uoon
530
the execution of Ahlzade Huseyin Efendi in 1043/1634.
In order to have a better understanding of Yahya Efendi’s
views, let us examine the following fetvas which he issued

against tobacco:
Q. When tobacco-smokers arrive at the mosques, Muslims are
annoyed because of the bad smell of their mouth and their
garments. Tobacco is harmful in various ways to people
who are addicted to it. Besides, engaging in this mekruh

531
act leads to idleness. The sultan has therefore issued a
decree for its prohibition. How should one act towards the
ones who violate this prohibition?
528
Bostanzade’s terms of office as sevhuiisiam were
between 997/1589-1000/1592 and 1001/1593-1006/1598. Yurdaydm,
"Dusiince ve Bilim Tarihi, 1300-1600," 157-158. See section
entitled "Bostanzade Mehmed Efendi."
529
Solakzade, TarTh 753; Ahlzade giiseyin Efendi’s term of
office as sevhuiisiam was between^l041/1632-1043/1634.
uzunqarsili, Osmanli Tarihi. 3, pt. 2:464.
530
Uzunparsili, Osmanl'i Tarihi. 3, pt. 2:465. Yahya
Efendi’s third term of office was between 1043/1634-1053/1644.
531
Mekruh: not forbidden by God but looked upon with
horror and disgust by Muslim teachers (act). Redhouse. 749.
219
A. The imperial decree which forbids people from smoking is in
accordance with the serf’at. All Muslims should abide by it
since this would be an auspicious act. Those who accept
this prohibition deserve to enjoy worldly benefactions.
Those who continue to smoke deserve a great punishment.
They should be prohibited firmly and by way of

532
compulsion.
Q. If some townspeople come to the mosque smoking with tobacco
pipes in their hands, how should they be treated according^
to the serl'at?
A. Henceforth, they should avoid behavior which is against
good manners (Minba’d edebe muhalif vaz’dan ihtiraz lazim-

533 °
dir).
On the other hand, the permissibility of tobacco-smoking
was recognized in a fetva for the canonical toleration (ibahe) of
tobacco stating that objects the unlawfulnss of which cannot be
proven by definite evidence are permitted (mubah). The
pidizadelis, collaborating with some agas in the palace,
influenced the dismissal of Baha’i Efendi from his office on the

535
pretext of this fetva.
532
Yaijya Efendi, Fetava. Suleymaniye L., MS. Izmir 248,
fol. 305.
533
Tahyi Efendi, Mecmu’a-i Fetava. Suleymaniye L., MS.
Haci Besir Aga 332, fol. 343b"r
534
Baha’i Efendi’s terms of office as sevhuiisiam were
between 1058/1649-1061/1651 and 1062/1652-1064/16o4. sii
I'zunparsili, Osmanli Tarihi. 3, pt. 2:468-470.
535
h'a’ima, TarTh, 5:62-63.
220
Apart from the books of fetava. there are numerous risales
on coffee and tobacco. One such work is the anonymous Risale-i

536
Duhanive. Its date of compilation is not known, but from the
sources to which the author refers we can guess that it was
written in the seventeenth century or later. In this risale. the
author sets out to prove the impermissibility of tobacco by
referring to the views of some 'ulema* and mesavih. He states
that according to Seyh Ahmed Rum! el-AkhisarT (d. 1041/1631),
sevhuiisiam Ebussu'ud Efendi gave a fetva for the illegality of
coffee despite the fact that its consumption does not disturb
anybody. If tobacco had appeared in Ebussu'ud Efendi’s time, he

537
would have given a fetva demanding the execution of smokers.
ibrahlm el-Lakanl (d. 1041/1631) refers to a tradition of
the Prophet according to which if a person follows the deeds of a

538
group, he will be resurrected with that group on doomsday. He
then adds that people who sympathize with the smokers follow
their bad habit; therefore they will be resurrected with smokers
and suffer torment in the hereafter.
536
Risale-i Duhanive. Suleymaniye L., MS. Erzincan
144/3. Mehmet $im$ek also mentions two risales by el-Hadiml
entitled Risale fI Hakki*1-Kahve and RisSle 'a!5 HazerivetiV4-
Duhan. Both of them are printed in a collection of risales in
Istanbul, 1302/1884-85. See $im$ek, "Les Controverses sur la
Bid'a en Turquie," 168-187.
537
Ahmed Rum! el-Akhisarl: a Halveti seyh who compiled
100 traditions in his work Mecalisu*1-Ebr2r ve Mesaliku’l-Ahvar.
Risale-i Duhanive. fol. 83.
538
ibrahlm b. ibrahlm el-Lakanl: a scholar who taught at
the Mosque of el-Ezher in Cairo. Risale-i Duhanive. fol. 90.
221
There is a section on tobacco in Vani Efendi’s book which
539
is particularly important for this thesis. Vani describes
tobacco as a sign of mischievous people (sxfat-i ehl-i fesad)
which extinguishes the light of faith (muzil-i nSr-i inan) and
produces devilish things (hasil-i bol sevtan). Moreover, it has a
bad smell, a bad taste, a bad name besides being a bad custom
(resin). .
The imams of the four mezhebs have agreed that it is an

/
obligatory act <farz) to obey the ruler as long as his rule is in
accordance with the serl'at. Vani Efendi quotes two Kur’anic
verses as evidence to warn the people who continue to smoke after.
the sultans have forbidden smoking. "They are like beasts-
indeed, they are less enlightened" ■ (7:180). "Believers, obey
Allah and the Apostle and those in authority among you. Should
you disagree about anything refer it to Allah and the.Apostle, if
you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day.This will in the
end be better and more just” (4:59). He then refers to a
traditkwof the Prophet which says: "He who obeys me obeys God.
He who opposea me opposed God. He who obeys the

ruler (emir.
540
re*Is! obeys me. He who opposes the ruler opposes me."
Vani Efendi then mentions the view of Kadi

*
Han
W
(d.
592/1196) which he expressed in that section of his book called

541
"Kitabti’s-Seyr." Accordingly, people should obey their ruler
539
Vani,, MuhvT. fols. 24b-25b.
540
541
For £adl Han, see note 253.
222
unless his orders lead to disobedience to God, a sin or a
disaster. The reason is that opposition to a ruler is unlawful

542
in religion. Vanf Efendi then quotes the verse "They ask you
what is lawful to them. Say: All good things are lawful to
you,..." (5:4) and the verse "He will make good things lawful to
them and prohibit all that is foul” (7il57). Commentators such
as Ka4^ BeyzavT (d. 691/1291?) and Imam Seyhzade Muhyiddrn Mehmed
Efendi (d. 951/1544) have agreed that things which the pious
people and those who fear God consider abominable are unlawful in
543 /
religion. It is as clear as the sun that good and pious
people find tobacco detestable. The smokers do notabhor it

544
because their nature is not pure.
Besides the Ottoman chronicles and various risales. a
number of western sources treat the - subject of coffee and
tobacco. The French traveler Jean Thevenot who spent nine months
in Istanbul between December 2, 1655 and August 30, 1656
describes the strict measures which Murad IV took in order to
prohibit tobacco-smoking. The sultan would often patrol the
streets in disguise punishing both the smokers and the sellers of
tobacco. According to The\’enot, the main reason for the imperial
ban on tobacco was to prevent the fires caused by negligent
542
Vani, MuhvT. fol. 25a.
543
For Katjl Beyzavl, see note 140. $eyhzade Mu^yTddin
wrote a supercommentary on BeyzavT.
544
Vani, MuhvT, fols. 25a-25b.
223
smokers. Thevenot also has an observation about the coffee
houses during the period of his stay in Turkey. He states that
people of different religions could go to these places for the
purpose of conversation or listening to music while they drank

545
their coffee.
Under the events of the year 1636, Rycaut (d. 1700)
relates Murad IV’s "horrid aversion to tabaco." He states that

546
the sultan would not hesitate to punish the smokers by death.
Murad IV’s prohibition of coffee-drinking and tobacco-
smokir.g was not very effectix'e. As we have seen, coffee-houses
in cities outside Istanbul were reopened during Mehmed IV’s

547
reign. On the subject of tobacco some "fools", accordi’.g to
Katib Celsbi, would say:
"Scatter the stupidity of smoking with the wind of

fortitude
For it has obstructed with its heat the sun of the
mind."548
These words « re ineffective upon the smoker, however, who

replied, saying:
"The joy and savour of tobacco are not found in

honey and sugar,"549
and went on smoking as usual. In Katib Celebi’s view, the best
way is not to meddle in the affairs of anyone on this subject.
545
Thevenot, Hanire. 173-175.
546
Rycaut, History. 59.
547
N'a'Ima, TarTh, 3:161.
548 °
Katib Celebi, Balance, 58.
549
Ibid., 58.
224
Bribery
Statesmen and writers of the seventeenth century often

complained of bribery as one of the vices in Ottoman society.
The author of the anonymous Kitab-i Mustetab. written around the
year 1029/1620 forcOsman II (1027/1618-1031/1622)j states that
holders of positions
in the state tehl-i menasib) have been
550
taking bribery for 25 to 30 years. Kocpi Bey, another author
of a reform treatise, describes it as the cause of disorder, the

/
ruin of people and of the country as well as deficiency in the
treasury. In Ko<?i 3ey’s view, it would be impossible to
establish just Lea without eliminating the practice of bribery.
Along these lies, he gives advice to the sultan as to how the
behavior of the grand vezTr, the appointment of provincial
administrators such as the bevlerbevis and the sancakbevis. the
apportioning of the ze'aaets. the tlmars.

the aroalifrs and the
551
pasmakliks should be without any role played by bribery.
Besides the Ottoman intellectuals who were preoccupied with
reforming the empire, the Kadfzadelis and the §ufxs too,
expressed their opinions or, bribery. Before examining their
views, a definition of bribery is in order. Ibn Xuceym el-Misrl
(d. 970/1563), the HanefI scholar renowned for his work on HanefT
550
"Kitab-i Mustetab, ” in Osmanli Devlet Teskilatma Pair
Kavnaklar. 23.
551
£o<pi Bey, Koci Bev Risalesi. 89-92. For areallk.
pasmaklik and zeSmet see Sertoflu, Osmanli Tarih Lueati. 18-19,
278 and 372-373.
225
flkh entitled el-Esbah ve*n-Na2 a ’ir fl’l-Furu*. wrote a separate
risale on bribery, an abbreviated translation of which appears in
Katib Celebi’s Mizanu* 1-flalf. Ibn Nuceym explains the dictionary
meaning of bribery as "anything given to a judge or other person
in orderto secure a favourable verdict or any other

552
desiratum”.
In Ta'rifat. Seyyld $erif el-Curcanl (d. 816/1413)
describes bribery as a thing which one gives in order to declare

553
the right as null and to show the wrong as the right. In hisT
commentary on the work by Kudurl, Imam Ebu Nasr el-BafdadT states

554
that one gives b r i b e r y in order to receive an assistance. In
gift-giving there is no such condition. Katib Celebi states that
the Kur’an and the siinnet both declare bribery unlawful in
religion. This becomes evident from the following verse:
"And do not consume your wealth amongst yourselves in vanity, or
offer it to judges that you may consume a portion of other men’s
wealth sinfully, knowing well what you are doing."(2:188).
There are also traditions of the Prophet to this effect: "God’s
curse on the giver of bribes and the taker of bribes, " and
"God’s curse on the giver of bribes, the taker of bribes, and the
555
agent who gees between."
552
553
Katib Celebi, Mizan. 102; for CurcanI, see note 108.
554
For Kudurl, see note 140; Ahmed b. Muhammed Ebu h'asr
el-Bagdadz (d. 474/1081) wrote a commentary on the Muhtasar of
Kudurl which is a well-known book of HanefT law.
555
226
Scholars such as Imam Kadi Han in FetSva-i Kadi Han, Ibn
Bezzaz in Fetava-i Bezzazive and Ibn

Humam in Fethu*1-Kadir
556
divided bribery into different categories. According to Ibn
Humam, some kinds of bribery are unlawful for both sides, e.g.,
the bribe given for obtaining -a judicial or other position. In
some cases, it is allowed to give but unlawful to take a bribe,
e.g., giving a bribe to a ruler for preventing hare or securing

557
benefit.
The Kadlzadelis, too, expressed their views on this
subject. KadTzade Mehmed Efendi treats bribery in his work
Tacti *r-Resa1 i1 ve Minhacfi ’1-Vesa’i1 is an which expanded

558
translation of Ibn Teymiye’s S ivasetu’s-Ser*Ive.
Kaqilzade describes the people in his time as being very
fond of giving gifts. They do so in order to escape from
oppression [isti'fa’-i mezalim) and to have their needs
fulfilled. (kaza’-i havavic). Usually, there are people who
function as intermediaries between the gift-giver and the
administrators (vulat-i uaur). The rulers favor such mediators
who facilitate gift-giving. In truth, none of the two sides
benefit from this relationship. Each sells his hereafter for he

559
world of the other. In his translation, Kadlzade then quotes
traditions of the Prophet which disapprove of bribery. He refers
556
For Faijreddln $adl Han, Ibn Bezzaz and Ibn Humam, see
notes 253 and 435.
557
Katib £elebi, Balance. 125-126.
558
Kaijlzade, lac, fols. 53a-54a; 65a-65b.
559
Ibid., fol. 53a.
227
to atradition of the Prophet related by EbuImame and reported
in the Stinen of Ebu Davud: "When a Muslim gives a gift to a
person who intercedes on his behalf, he opens a great door of

560
usury."
ibrahlm el-garbx quotes

a tradition which ‘Abdullah b.
561
Mes'ud reported from the Prophet. Accordingly, the acceptance
of a gift from aperson in return for the fulfillment of a need
is a sinful act (suht) which is censured in the Kur’an. The
person who takes this gift is blameworthy both in God’s sight an<f
562
in the view of people.
If the rulers do not carry out the legal punishments
tta* tTl-i had) in return for taking money, they combine two
vices. They abandon what is-vacib and take over (irtikab) what
is unlawful in religion. In his translation, KadTzade then
quotes a relevant Kur’anic verse on this subject. "You see many
of themvie with one another in sin and wickedness and eat the
! 563
fruits of unlawful gain. Evil is what they do" (5:63). The
Prophet also disapproved of bribery in a tradition: "May God’s
malediction be upon those who give and receive bribes as well as

564
the intermediaries between them."
560
Ibid., fol. 53b. Imam Afuaed also relates this
tradition in his Musned.
561
ibrahlm b. ishaij el-Harbl (d. 286/899): one of the
students of A£med b. Hanbel (d. 241/855).
562
KadTzade, Tac. fol. 54a.
563
Ibid., fol. 65a.
564
Ibid. 65b.
228
'Abdulmecld Sivasi treats the subject of bribery in two of
his works. He quotes the verse "They listen to falsehoods and
practise what is unlawful" (5:42) as evidence that God
disapproved of bribery. According to a number of commentators,
there are fifteen acts related to pecuniary matters which God
censured in the ftur’an. Among them are bribery, money paid for
adultery, money paid for a soothsayer, blcod-ncney, the fee of
professional mourners, the fee of musicians, the pay of
intercessors, etc. Such acts demolish the auspicious nature of
acts of obedience to God as well as the fruitfulness of
possessions. For this reason, God has named them as suht.
Sivasi Efendi then quotes a tradition of the Prophet reported by

565’
Ebu Iraame, which as we have seen, KadTzade has also quoted.
After having referred to the above-mentioned tradition -which

✓
regards gift-giving in return for an intercession as usury,
Sivasi Efendi quotes the verse "Those that live on usury shall
rise up before Allah like men whom Satan has demented by his
I
touch; for they
claim that usury is like trading" (2:275) in
566
order to prove his point.
In his work Leta* if. A. Sivasi considers it incumbent upon
the rulers to obey God and to organize their acts in line with
the serl’at. God improves the relations between such good rulers
and the people, leading them to the correct path.

This takes
567
place according to the saying "en-nas ala din mulukihim.”
565
Sivasi, N’esavih. fols. 24a-25a; Sivasi, Leta’if. fol.
566
Sivasi, Nesavih. fol. 25a.
567
"People follow the religion of their rulers."
229
Bearing in mind the transient nature of this world, the rulers
.568
should prevent and abstain from acts of bribery.
As we have seen, Kacjizade and Sivasi essentially agree that
bribery is a vice which the people and administrators should
refrain from. Probably, their views differed only on certain
aspects of this practice such as specific-acts which constitute
bribery, the classification of bribery into separate categories,
etc. These differences did not come out in their writings, but
/
they were expressed presumably in their sermons.
Finally, let us briefly examine Katib Qelebi’s views on
bribery. He states that this practice still continues in
government offices and people often find a "legal device" in
' order to justify their acts. In Katib Celebi’s view, however,
bribery is detrimental to the state; therefore,

judges and
569
sultans should always comply with the law in their actions.
568
SivasT, Leta* if. fols. 35-36.
569 ^
Katib Qelebi, Balance. 126-127.
230
Shaking Hands and Bowing
Musafaha (shaking hands) was a sunnet of the Prophet

performed during the ceremonies of bl'at and on occasions when
Muslims met each other. Imam'Muhylddln en-Nevevi devoted a
chapter to the traditions of the Prophet on this subject in his

570
work Erkaru’1-Miir.tehab. According to Katib velebi, "later the
practice fell into desuetude, and people came to do it only after
prayer; in Turkey, mostly after the Friday prayer. As this was/
an innovation based on custom and use, certain preachers forbade

571
it as being a heretical Shi'ite practice." A fetva was issued
therefore which declared shaking hands after the daily prayers a
"heretical Shi'ite practice."

Shaking hands after the Friday
572
prayers was considered a special case.
In a tradition, the Prophet approved the practice of
musafaha: "When two Muslims meet and shake hands, God pardons
tne sins of both before they depart." As for inhina*. it entails
bowing, kissing hands, kissing the skirt of a superior or the
ground with the purpose of salutation. During the Prophet’s
time, when two persons were to greet each other the first one
said: "Peace be upon you" and the other replied: "And on you be
570
Muhylddln Ebu Zekeriya Yahya b. Seref en-Nevevi (d.
676/1277): a Safi'I fakih and scholar of hadxs.
571
572
Ibid., 101.
231
the peace and the mercy and the blessings of God." During the
period of the Four Righteous Caliphs, the companions of the
Prophet and other Muslims saluted each other in this manner. .New
forms of greeting developed under the rule of the Umayyads and
the Abbasids. In the Ottoman State ‘it was customary for a person
to kiss the ground when he appeared in the sultan’s presence.
People bowed before men of high rank and religious scholars.
Common people would greet each other saying "Good morning" and
573
"Lord love you!". /
The way people greeted each other was yet another matter of
concern for the Kadlzadelis as it had been for their mentor.
According to BirgivI Mehmed Efendi, it is a disagreeable act to
bow upon greeting each other. Shaking hands, howe\’er, is
permitted. He then quotes a tradition of the Prophet reported by
Enes b. Malik and related by TirmizI: Someone asked the Prophet:
"When a person meets his brother or his friend should he bow"?
The Prophet answered: "So." The person asked again: "Can he
embrace and kiss him"? The Prophet said: "So." The man asked:
"Can he shake hands with him"? The Prophet answered: "Yes." On
the basis of this tradition the fukaha’ reached the conclusion
that it is a disagreeable act to bow while greeting and returning

574
a salutation.
573
Ibid., 103-104.
574
BirgivI, TarTkat. 492-493.
232
Ustuvanl Efendi does not discuss the subject of musafaha in
detail. He
just notes that it is an innovation to shake hands
575
(musafaha) after the Friday prayer.
Van! Efendi accepts shaking hands as a practice which has
been rendered permissible by traditions of the Prophet. At the
same time, he mentions some qualifications on this social
practice. Accordingly, at certain times musafaha becomes an act
which is mekruh. VanI Efendi treats this subject in a section of

_ /
his work
MuhyT entitled "FI beyan-i kerahet-i musafaha fl
576
ba'zi'1-evkat." He first quotes a tradition of the Prophet in
order to prove the permissibility of musafaha: "When Muslims
meet, let them shake hands.

Their sins will go away just like
577
the dry leaves falling from trees."
VanT then refers to Muhylddln en-Nevevi who, in his
commentary, of the Sahxh of Muslim, states that musafaha is a
sunnet of the Prophet; therefore Muslims should perform it every
time they meet. He adds, however, that there is no basis of
performing the musafaha after the morning and the afternoon
prayers in religion. One may kiss the hands of scholars and the
rulers of the state. The companions and discioles of the Prophet

578
kissed his hand and Ebu Bekir kissed him on his forehead.
a ia
Ustuvanl, Risaletii1 1 -Mes1 ele. fol. 36.
576
VanI, MuhvI. fols. 12a-12b.
577
Ibid., fol. 12a.
578
Ibid., fols. 12a-12fc.
233
The §ufTs do not treat the subject of musafaha directly.
'Abdiilmecid SivasT discusses 'greeting’ in general without
entering a discussion of shaking hands and bowing. We cam
speculate that either their works were lost or they dealt with
this subjêct in their sermons. -Let us now consider SivasT
Efendi’s arguments. According to some scholars, greeting (selant)

579
ar.d invoking blessings (saiavat! have the same meaning.
580
Ebu Xu'aym mentions this point in Hilve. SivasT Efendi then
refers to the expression "ve sellimu” in the Kur’an

* which can be/
regarded as open to interpretation ('atf-i tefslr). This verb
appears in the verse T h e Prophet is blessed by Allah and His
angels. Bless him, then, you that are true believers, and greet
him with a worthy salutation" (33:55).
In the following verse there is mention of greetings only.
This, toe, indicates that saiavat and seiam can be used
interchangeably: "Say: Praise be to Allah and peace upon His
servants whom He has!chosen...” (27:59). According to Mukatil b.
Suleyman (d. 150/767), the word "servants" in this verse means
the prophets. The verse “Peace be on Abraham" (37:109) confirms
the point that greetings are recited for prophets.
SivasT Efendi then gives a more detailed argument on
greeting. He notes that returning a salutation is a farz-i
579
SivasT, Xesavih. fols. 81a-83a.
580
Ebu Xu'aym Ahmed b. 'Abdullah el-IsfahanT (d.
430/1038-39).
234
kifave. He then quotes some relevant traditions of the
581
Prophet.
In a tradition recorded by Buâri in Edeb. Ebu Ya'la in
Musned as well as by Ibn Havyan and BeyhakT, the Prophet said:
"Spread greetings so that you will be safe from trouble." BerS’
reports this tradition from the Prophet.
Hakim relates a tradition which Ebu Musa narrated from the
Prophet: "Spread greetings so that you show affection to one

another.“
Teheran! quotes a tradition which Ibn 'Amr reported from
the Prophet: "Spread greetings. Indeed, such is God’s
approval." Sivasi Efendi makes it clear that in this tradition,
the spread of greetings among Muslims is meant. It is unlawful,
however, to greet infidels, dancers, innovators, heretics,
misbelievers, bufoons, story-tellers, habitual-liars, those who
engage in thoughtless and improper conversations (lagv)■ and acts
of blasphemy, people who sit in the street watching voung girls

582
and boys.
According to Sivasi Efendi, it is considered a disagreeable
act to greet people who are preoccupied with certain religious
practices. Such acts are reading the Qur’an the call to
581
Sivasi, Xesavify. fol. 81b; farz-i kifave: a
religious duty the observance of which by some will absolve the
rest of Muslims. Redhouse. 361. <
582 SivasT, N'esavih. fol. 82a.
235
prayer, performing
the ikame and kaia’. delivering the hutbe,
583°
conducting a class, invoking blessings upon the Prophet.
'Abdiilmecid Sivasi then quotes the verse "If a man greets
you, let your greeting be better than his_ or at least return his
greeting..." (4:86) which shows how a greeting should be. A
Muslim should honor the person who salutes him to a greater
degree in his salutation. Namely, if a Muslim greets another by
saying "Peace be upon you," the other should reply saying: "And
on you be the peace and the mercy of God." If the greeting is/
"Peace be upon you and the mercy of God," the reply should be
"And on you be the peace and the mercy and the blessing of God."
If the greeting is "Peace be upon you and the mercy and the
blessing of
God," the person who returns the salutation should
584
reply by the same expression.
583
ikame: commencing the performance of the ritual
prayer;, kasa*: late performance of an act of worship omitted at
the proper time. Redhouse. 523, 626.
584
Sivasi, Nesavih. fol. 82b.
236
CHAPTER VIII
MATTERS RELATED TO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AN'D PRACTICES
23 7
Invoking Blessings unon the Prophet and his Companions
Taslive means invoking blessings upon the Prophet with the
formula "sallallahu 'aleyhi ve sellenT (the blessing and peace of
God be upon him). Tarzive is-blessing the companions of the
Prophet with the formula "radlyallahu 'anh" (God be pleased with

585
him).
Religious scholars who follow the creed of Imam-i A'zam Ebu

/
Hanlfe (d. 150/769), consider it a binding duty (fari) upon every
Muslim to recite the tasiive once in a lifetime. Others say that
this act is a vacib. i.e., canonically laudable. While according
to some scholars, blessing the Prophet upon each mention of his
name is necessary in line with the tradition, this point is under

586 •
dispute.
Since taslive and tarzive are mentioned both in the Kur’an
and in the traditions, these practices began with the emergence
of Islam. In the seventeenth century, both the Kadlzadeiis and
the Sufis treated this issue in their works, accepting it as a
religious duty. The dispute was about when and under what
conditions such practices could be performed.
BirgivI Mehmed Efendi, the intellectual mentor of the
Kadlzadeiis, treats the subject of taslive in his work Tarikat-i
585
586
Ibid.,47.
238
587
Muhammedive. He first points out that it is forbidden to
speak while listening to the hutbe.
This holds true even when the listeners may speak for the
purpose of taslive. tesbxh or advising the religious injunction
of el-emr bi’l-ma'ruf ve’l-nehv 'ani*1-munker. Birgivi then
quotes a tradition recorded by BuharT and Muslim and related by
Ebu Hureyre from the Prophet: "If, when the imam is delivering
the Friday sermon, you tell your neighbour "Keep quiet", you talk
588
nonsense."
When the mii*ezzin says "Believers, invoke blessings..."
during the sermon, the listeners can recite the taslive in their
589
hearts. Birgivi notes that, according to his sevhs. those
who attend the sermon should not invoke blessings upon the
Prophet even in their hearts. The reason is that listening to
the sermon is a farz. Reciting the taslive. however, is a
siinnet. Birgivi
then quotes from the book entitled TecnTs in
590
order to support his point.
591
Kadlzade treats this subject in his work irsadu’1- *Ukul.
He disapproves of the practice of invoking blessings upon the
Prophet and his companions which the mu *ezzins have made

587
Birgivi, Tarikat. 373-374.
588
Ibid., 374.
589
Ibid., 374; The mu’ezz in recites verse 33:56 before
the Friday sermon.
590
et-Tecnis ve’l-MezId fT’l-Fetava: a work by 'All b.
Ebu Bekir el-Merginanl (d. 593/1197).
591
$adizade, irsSd. fols. 167a-167b.
239
customary during their Friday sermons, considering this practice
as sunnet or vacib. In Ka4izade’s view, there is no proof for
its permissibility in the Qur’an, the sunnet or the works of the
fukaha’. On the contrary, these acts are described as mekruh and
haram in religion. We can say that âijlzade takes a more radical
stance than Birgivi on the subject ;f taslive during the Friday
sermon. . KadlzSIe quotes the verse "When the Koran is recited,
listen to it in silence so that Allah may show you mercy" (7:204)

592
so as to support his view.
Ka4izade then quotes the same tradition which Birgivi has
quoted as well to the effect that it is forbidden for the
audience to speak while listening to the sermon. In the view of
Muhylddln en-Nevevi (d. 676/1277), this tradition prohibits all
kinds of speech when- the imam is delivering the sermon.
According to the Safi'Is and the Hanefls, it is impermissible for
the audience to speak or recite the taslive and the tariive

593
durihg the sermon.
In
his Feva* id. tfstiivanl Efendi treats the subject of
594
taslive. He relates an incident which is mentioned in
595
Fetava-i Bezzazive. One day, Ibn Mes'Sd, who was from the
596
eshab. came to the Mescid-i Serif. There, he saw some people
592
Ibid., fol. 167a.
593
Ibid., fol. 167b.
594
Ustiivani, Feva’id. fols. 178b-179a.
595
For Fetava-i Bezzazive see note 253.
596
Mescid-i Serif: the mosque which surrounds the Ka'be
of' Mecca. Redhouse. 761.
240
reciting the zikrullah and the tasliye loudly and in
congregation. Upon his, he said: "Why are you shouting? All I
see is a group of innovators. This practice did not exist during
the P r o p h e t ’s time." Ibn Mes'ud was persistent in his words a nd
expelled these people from the mosque. Ustiivani Efendi then
notes that any act of x*orship which is against the s e r l ’at is an
innovation* Scnis sourcos which support f.h jo yi aro i.vs

597
and Ibn M e l e k ’s commentary on M e c m a 'u ’1-Bahrevn.
According to 'AbdiilmecTd Sivasi, invoking blessings upon
the Prophet with the formula 'The blessing and peace of God be
upon him’ is a religious duty applicable to all Muslims (farz-i
'a v n ). It is incumbent upon every wise and adult Muslim to

598
recite the taslive every time the P r o phet’s name is mentioned.
Some scholars of fikh and commentators such as TahavT, KurûbT

599
and Zemah$erl confirm this view. It is mentioned in Hulasa
and Tuhfe that Sevhiilislam Haherzade, in his commentary on
Cami'-i Keblr and Semsii’i - E ’imme SerahsT also supoort this

600
point.
597
For Tatarhanive see note 424; M e c m a 'u ’1-Sahrevn ve
M u l t e k a ’iih-KevvTrevn: a work by Imam Muâffereddln Ahmed b.
'Ail el-Bagdad! !d. 694/1295). Ibn Melek id. 797/1394— 35) wrote
a commen t a r y on it. For Ibn Melek see note 253.
598
SivasT, N'esavih. fols. 78a-78b.
599
For TahavT, KurtubT and Zemah$erT see notes 500, 474
and 164. °
500
Hulasa:
\j » the w ork of an unknown author which m a i n l y
draws on the work entitled Fetava-i Bezzazive by Ibn Bezzaz
(d. 827/1424). For Tuhfe see note 484; Seyhiilislam gaherzade Ebu
3ekir Melimed b. Hiiseyin el-Buharl (d. 483/1090); Cami'-i K e b l r :
a wo r k by Imam Munammed es-§eyban! id. 159/805); for SerahsT see
note 429.
241
Sivasi Efendi quotes a number of traditions in order to
601 "
ver if y his views:
Hakim and TirmizT relate a tradition which Ebu Hureyre reports
from the Prophet: "May that person be humiliated who hears my
name and does not invoke blessings upon me."
Hakim, Ibn Hayyan, N e s e ’I, Ibn Mace, Ebu Davud and T i r mizT all
relate the P r o p h e t ’s words: "When a group of people or a tribe
sit in fathering without praising God and without invoking
blessings upon me, that assembly will be an occasion of regret
and anger for them. Indeed, God shows mercy and wrath upon his
will." Ibn Hayyan records the same tradition as: "That
gathering will cause them to have feelings of yearning an d
remorse. Even if they enter heaven, they will not be free from
re g r e t . “ -
TeberanT in R'ebTr relate- from Huseyin. The Prophet said:
"When my name is mentioned before someone and he fails to bless
me, he will fail in finding the wa y to heaven." SivasT Efendi
interprets this tradition saying that if he does not recite the
taslive he cannot enter heaven.
In a gathering where the P r o p h e t ’s name is mentioned
repeatedly, such as w h e n traditions are related, it is sufficient
to say the taslive only once. The reason is that invoking
blessings perpetually may interrupt the sneaker and the listeners

602
in this particular case.
601
SivasT, N e s a v i h , fols. 78b-79a.
602
TL -• J /• l
i U l U . ) LUX* ISO.
242
Sivasi Efendi then quotes the following verse which shows
that invoking blessings upon the Prophet is a farz for every
Muslim: "The Prophet is blessed by Allah and His angels. Bless
him, then, you

that are true believers, and greet him with a
603
wort h y salutation" (33:56).
It is also necessary to recite the taslive when the name of
other prophets are mentioned. In a tradition which BeyhakI
relates from Ebu Hureyre. the Prophet said: "Invoke blessings
upon G o d ’s prophets. He has dispatched them, as He has sent me,
with a prophetic mission." Since Prophets encourage faith,
worship and prayers, whether they ma y bring a book or not,
Muslims should invoke blessings upon them as an expression of’

604
gratitude.
The formula of taslive expresses reverence, compassion and
spiritual nearness to God. Only Prophets and angels who are
innocent deserve homage. People, however, may have guilts and
faults. Their names can therefore be mentioned only after the
P r o p h e t ’s name in the formula. Sivasi Efendi then quotes verse
24:63 in order to support his ooint:

"Do not address the apostle
605
in the manner you address one another." According to the work
e ntitled H u l a s■a . the purpose of reciting the taslive for people

J
is not reverence but entreating G o d ’s mercy for them. Sivasi
603
I b i d . , fol. 80a.
604
Ibid. , f o l . 80a.,
605
Ib i d . , fol. 20b.
243
Efendi quotes verse 33:43 as evidence for the permissibility of
taSlive for people: "He and His angels bless you, so that He ma y
606
lead you from darkness to light."
As we have seen, o n the subject of invoking blessings u pon
the Prophet and his companions, the views of the K2dizadelis and
the Sufis differ in some ways. While Birgivi accepts this
practice as a s u n n e t . SivasT Efendi considers it as farz-i 'avn
and quotes a K u r ’anic verse to support his view. SivasT Efendi
gives a more general discussion on this issue, including topics
such as invoking blessings upon other prophets and the people.
He does not treat, however, taslive and tarzive during the hutbe
which was a major issue for 3irgivi and £adTzade.
Let us finally see how Katib Celebi views this subject.
According to him, it is preferable to keep quiet during the hutbe
in compliance with the traditions of the Prophet to this effect.
He then goes on to say that many people still recite the taslive
during the Friday sermon since this act has become customary.
607
Any effort to stop this practice would therefore be in vain.
606
Ibid., fols. 80b-8ia. For Hulasa see note 600.
607 "~
Katib Celebi, Balance, 47-43.
244
The Melodic Recitation of the Kur’an,
608
the Call to Prayer and Eul o g y for the Prophet
It is accepted that chanting the K u r ’an began during the
time of the T a b i ' I n . As tine passed, the readers in different
regions started to recite the K u r ’an according to their local
tunes and music. In this way.

some new nractices emerged which
' 609
were considered by some to be forbidden in religion.
On this subject, the Kadlzadeiis and their mentor Birgivi
expressed their views. According to both Birgivi and Kadlzade,
melodic recitation of the K u r ’an, prayers and litanies to God are
all forbidden practices. Both scholars think that if tegannl
means chanting the K u r ’an with a beautiful sound, the correct
rhythm and pronunciation, this is permissible. In their view,
chanting the K u r ’5n with a beautiful voice is a good and pious

610
ac t (m e n d u b ).
608
The melodic recitation of the K u r ’an and the call to
prayer are discussed in the works of the Kadlzadeiis. In his
work M i z a n . Katib Celebi also has a brief section on chanting
the K u r ’an. See Katib Celebi, B a l a n c e . 39. Na'ima, in his
discussion on the m o v e m e n t ’s suppression, states that the
Kadlzadeiis objected to the melodic recitation of the eulogy for
the Prophet tna't-i s e r i f ) by the m u ’e z z i n . See Na'ima, T a r X h .
6:224-225. Therefore, this subject was probably among the °
controversial issues as well.
609
These practices are, t a h z i n : a reading or chanting
the K u r ’an in a plaintive tone; t a t r i b : a trilling, quavering
the voice in singing and chanting; t e r ' I d : quavering the voice
in chanting. See R e d h o u s e . 1085, 1106, 1150 and U l u d a g , tslam
A c i s m d a n Musiki ve S e m a . 204-%
610
Birgivi, T a r i k a t . 338; K^dTzade, irsad. fol. 170b.
245
Birgivi Mehmed Efendi then quotes the following traditions
611
of the Prophet to verify his point: 'Abdiirrezzak relates from
B e r a ’ who reported from the Prophet: "Embellish your voice while
reading the K u r ’an." According to a tradition narrated by Ebu
Davud and N e s e ’I, the Prophet said: • "Ornament the Jiur’an with
your voice." Buharl and Muslim relate a tradition from Ebu
Hureyre in which the Prophet said: "God does not lister, to
anything else like he listens to the Prophet who chants the
K u r ’an beautifully." Buharl recorded a tradition related by Ebu
Hureyre from the Prophet: "He who does not chant the K u r ’an
melodically is not from us." Birgivi makes it clear that in
these traditions tegannl does not mean singing.
According to a number of scholars, it is forbidden in
religion to trill the voice in chanting the £ u r ’an ancj £0 spoil

612
the proper rhythm and pronunciation. Bezzazi, Zeyla'T,
Xevevi in his work Tibvan. KadTii’1-Kudat in Havl and the work

613
entitled T3.tarha.nive all defend this view. ! Birgivi also
quotes verse 39:23 in order to support his point: "We have
revealed it in the Arabic tongue, a Koran free from all faults,
that they ma y guard themselves against evil." Kadlzade refers to
Tatarhanive as well and states that reciting the K u r ’an
611
Birgivi, T a r l k a t . 338-340.
612
Ibid., 341-342.
613
For Bezzazi (Ibn Bezzaz) see note 253: raijreddm
'Osman b. 'All ez-Zeyla'I (a. 743/1342): a scholar of f i k h :
et-Tibvan fl Adab-i H a m l e t i ’l K u r ’a n : a work by Muhylddln
en-Nevevi (d. 676/1277) on the recitation of the K u r ’an;
Ka-vlu’1-K e b l r : a work on fikh by Kadi E b l ’l Hasan 'All b.
Muhammed el-Maverdl (d. 450/1058); for Tatarhanive see note 424.
246
melodically during _the ritual worship (salat) and alone is a
canonically laudable act (miistehab) only if the reading does not

614
change the words and the meaning.
Katib C e l e b i ’s view on this subject is similar to the
above-mentioned opinions of Birgivi an d Kadlzade:
In the case of the K o r a n , ■ chanting is restricted

and bound by the rule against impairing the clear
enunciation of the letters and the breaks and liaisons
between words; observance of the rules of musicai modes
must not lead one actually to make a tune of Koran
chanting. This is a special kind of singing which does
not conform to the rules of the science of music. 615
We have Cstuvanl E f e n d i ’s views on chanting the call to
prayer (e z a n ). He states that as mentioned in Multeka and by.
KudurT, reciting the cail to prayer is a sunnet-i mvi’ekkede.
i.e., a practice which the Prophet did not omit. Therefore, its
616
omission would oe improper. It is forbidden, however, to
recite the e-tan melodically and to impair the harmony of words.
He who recites the call to prayer should understand its meaning

617
well.
As it appears, no work is extant by the §ufis on chanting
the K u r ’an, the ezan or the n a ’t-i s e r i f . Probably their views
came out in their sermons. We can assume that since the §ufls do
not object to music, they would not oppose these practices
provided that they are performed properly.
614
Kadizade, irsSd. fol. 170b.
615
Katib Celebi, B a l a n c e . 39.
616
For Multeka and K u d u r l , see notes 253 and 140.
617
UsûvanT, *i l m ihal. fol. 53b.
247
The Performance of the Supererogatory Prayers in Congregation
The supererogatory p r a yers are the prayers that sure
performed aside from the ones which are farz and vacib.
Performing the farz of the p r a y e r s 1five times a day and the
Friday prayer is an o b l i gatory act (farz). The prayers of Vitir

618
and Bavram are v a c i b . We have the views of the kadlzadeiis on
this subject. The works of the Sufis have not survived to this
day, unfortunately. Mehmed Tahir, however, mentions a risale by

619 '
'Abdiilaljad Nurl Efendi w h i c h I have not been able to find.
The controversial issue b e tween the two sides was whether it is
permissible to perform the prayers of R e e a ’ib. Berat and Kadir i n
congregation.
KadTzade Mehmed Efendi distinguishes those prayers which
Muslims are permitted to p e r f o r m in congregation from those which
they are not. Performing the farz of the ritual worship five
times’ a day in congregation is a siinnet-i mii’e k k e d e . It is
incumbent upon the Muslims, he notes, to perform the farz of the
Friday prayers and the prayers of Bav r a m in congregation. Ebu
Yusuf (d. 182/798) and Imam M u hammed (d. 189/305), drawing
support from the traditions of the Prophet, consider the
p erformance of certain prayers in congregation acceptable. These
618
Vitir S a m a z i : the p r a y e r performed between night and
morning; Bavram namaz i : morning prayers performed on the first
day of the Festivals of Sacrifice and Ramazan. For
supererogatory prayers, see Debbag o g l u and Kara eds.,
Ansiklonedik Buviik Islam I l m i h a l i . 447.
619
A. N'url, Risale f7 Cevaz-i E d a ’in-Nevafil
b i ’l - C e m a ' a t . See M. Tahir, OM, 1:122.
248
are the prayers of Vitir during the month of R a m a z a n , the prayers
620
of TeravTh. Kusuf and tstiska*.
In $ a d T z a d e ’s view, those who innovate the practice of
performing the R e e a ’ib. Berat and Kadir prayers in congregation
are sinful. They commit an act which is a bad innovation
(b i d ;at-i k a b l h e ). In his r i s a l e . KladlzSde.quotes a tradition of
the Prophet to this effect: "He who commits an act which I have
621
not ordered will be refuted in G o d ’s view."
According to KadTzade, it is permissible to perform the
supererogatory prayers in congregation when there are less than
three people. The reason is that when two people follow the
imam, this does not mean an invitation to perform the
supererogatory prayers in congregation. In the case of four
peopie, this practice definitely becomes an unlawful one.
Scholars such as Ibn Humam and Sevh Ekmeleddln el-Babertl
regarded the performance of such prayers in congregation
permissible when there are three oeople. This issue, however, is

622
under dispute.
620
TeravTh: the supererogatory prayer during the month of
7 0 " • a *»w <■,■».a
I u w ju t J. . w ix C O W j'C l j ^ C 4 4 W 4 M C U
during the solar eclipse; istiska* N a m a z i : praying God for rain.

KadTzade, D e v r a n . fol. 96b; Xman ve Namaz R i s a l e s i . fol. 73a;
Risale-i K a d T z a d e . fols. 66b-67a.
621 ijladlzade, D e v r a n . fol. 96b; £adlzade, fman ve Namaz

Risalesi, fols. 73a-73b; Risale-i K a d T z a d e . fols. 66b-69a.
622
KadTzade, Kam i ' a . fols. 48a-49a; for Ibn Humam and
Ekmeleddln el-Babertl, see notes 435 and, 429.
249
Ustiivani Efendi agrees with Kadlzade on the number of
people performing the supererogatory prayers. As usual, he is
careful to support his v iew by referring to some important books
on this subject such as the commentary on T a b a r i ’s work, Fetava-i

623
B e z z a z i v e , and ibrahlm el-flalebl’s Serh-i K e b l r .
According to H u l a s a t u *1 - F e t a v a . it is forbidden to perform

° . 624
all supererogatory prayers in congregation except for T e r a v x h .
Ustiivani also refers to a book by Ibn Niiceym entitled Bahrii*r-
R a ’i k . according to which the practice of performing the prayer ;
of Rega* iband other supererogatory prayers in congregation is

625
non-valid (b a t i l ). Ustiivani Efendi then notes that Ibn Melek
in his commentary on M e s a n k . S eyh Ekmeleddln and Muhylddln en-

626
N'evevT all consider this practice impermissible. Ustiivani
goes on to say that according to Ibn Humam, it is a mekruh act to
623
Ustiivani, F e v a ’ i d.. .Fera* Id. fols. 78b-79a; Ustiivani,
*Aka* i d . fols. 128b-129b. For Taljavl see note 500. Here,
probably his work Muhtasar f l ’l-Fikh is meant which attracted
many commentaries; for Fetava-i B e z z a z i v e . see note 253; Serh-i
K e b l r : ibrahlm b. Muljammed el-JJalebl (d. 956/1549) wrote two
commentaries on Miinvetii*1-MusallI by Sadldeddln el-Kasgarl, a
writer of the 13th century. The larger one is entitled
Giinvetu’1-MiitemellI and it deals w i t h questions about ritual
prayer extensively. Probably Ustiivani refers to this commentary
here.
GO A
Hu l a s a t u*1-Fetava: a work by Imam Tahir b. Ahmed b.

'Abdiirre$Id” el-BuharI (d. 5^2/1147 ).
625
Ibn Niiceym e i - M i § n ’s (d. 970/1563) w ork B a h r u ’r-Ra* ik
is a commentary on iiafizeddxn E b l ’l Berekat en-h'esefl’s
id. 710/1310) book Kenzii’d-Dekavik on H a n e f l f l k h .
626
For M e s a n k see note 253; Ibn Melek (d. 797/1394-95)
wrote a commentary on this work. For ?eyh Ekmeleddln and NeyevI,
see notes 429 and 570.
250
pe r f o r m the supererogatory prayers in congregation except for the
prayers of TeravTh and K u s u f . Some other well-known books which
support this view are Durer-i G u r e r .

the commentaries on Hidave
627
and B i r g i v i ’s w ork Tarlkat-i Muhammadi v p .
VanI Efendi, too, treats the subject of the supererogatory
prayers in his works. In his view, those who perform the prayers
of R e g a ’ib. Berat and Kadir in congregation oooose Imam-i A'zam.

628
Therefore, this practice should be abandoned.
According to Van! Efendi, Lr. is a mekruh act to perform the
supererogatory prayers in congregation except for the ones of

629
TeravTh. Kusuf and i s t iskg’. Scholars have agreed that
traditions which allow for the performance of the prayers of
R e a a ’ ib and Berat are weak. (mev;*:u1 1. Ebu HStim Muhammed b.
Cebban noted that Muijammed b. Muhacir fabricated a tradition on
this subject. Again, he considers the tradition which Er.es
reported on the supererogatory prayers as weak since ibrahlm b.

! 630
isljak, one of his informants, distorted it.
E b u ’l Ferec Ibnii’l-CevzT and Ebu Bekir et-Turtus! both
consider performing the prayer of R e g a ’ib in congregation as a
practice d i s a pproved by the Prophet. The s a h a b e . t a b i 1In and the
627
UstuvahT, r e v a ’i d . ..r e r a ’i d . fol. 79a; For Ibn Humam,
Durerii’1-Hukkam fl Serh-i G u r e r i *1-Ahkam and H i d a v e . see note 435,
79 and note 350.
628
Van!, Risale-i V a n I . fol. 80a.
629
VanI, M u h v I . fol. 9b.
630
I b i d . , f o i . 10a.
251
following m u c t e h i d s - have not reported any evidence in favor of
631
this practice.
As w e have seen, KadTzade, Ustiivani and Van! all agree that
it is unlawful to perform the supererogatory prayers of R e g a 1ib.
Berat and K ad i r in congregation, regarding this practice as an
innovation. In their view, Muslims are allowed to perforin only
certain p r a yers in congregation. These are the prayers of
TeravTh, Kusuf, Vitir and is t i s k a * . According to pidlzade
Ustiivani, w h e n there are less than three people it is permissible
to perform the supererogatory prayers in congregation. Van! does
not say anything on this subject.
Finally, let us briefly examine Katib C e l e b i ’s view. He
states that since the prayers of R e g a ’ib. Berat and Kadir did not
exist during the P r o h e t ’s time, some ’u l e m a ’ rejected them as
innovations. Fetvas were issued for and against the practice of
performing them. H e then continues:
But custom was on the side of their

performance and the law ordains respect for
custom, and it is agreed that there is
certain harm in trying to prevent any
innovation or disapproved practice. ...It is
better not to forbid any custom that takes
the shape of worshipping God, for that would
give rise to zeal and persistence. 632
631
Ibid., fol.*10b. E b u ’l-Ferec I b n u ’l-CevzT
(d. 597/1200): an Arab writer and preacher. For TurûsT, see
note 474.
632
252
633
el-emr b i ’l.-rma1ruf ve'l-nehv 'ani* 1-nunker
Ba s e d on the Q u r ’an, the traditions of the Prophet and the
consensus of legists, it is held that the religious injunction of
el-emr b i ’l - m a ^ u f ve'l-nehv ‘ani* 1-munker is a farz-i kifave for
Muslims and its application is incumbent upon the ruler.
•Concerning the obligatory nature of this principle and on some
important conditions for its observance, Sivasi Efendi, Birgivi
and ICaÎzade are in agreement. They all quote verse 3:104 which
/
reminds Muslims of the obligation to apply this principle: "Thus
Allah makes plain to you His revelations, so that you may be
rightly guided; and that you may grow into a nation that will
speak for righteousness, enjoin justice and forbid evil. Such

634
men shall surely triumph.”
According to 'Abdiilmecld Sivasi. the first condition for
enjoining good is that the preacher should not cause a mischief
or an intrigue (f i t n e ) by his sermon. Otherwise, this dutv will

635 ■
not be a v a c i b . In his work Tarlkat-i M u h a m m e d i v e . Birgivi
636
expresses the same view. Sivasi Efendi then quotes the
following K u r ’anic verses in order to prove his point:
633
Ordering that which is approved by canonical law and
prohibiting that which is canonically unlawful.
634
Sivasi, P u r e r , fols. 75a-75b; Birgivi, T a r l k a t . 362;
Kadlzade, K a m i ’a . foi. 70a.
635
Sivasi, P u r e r . fol. 72b.
636
Birgivi, T a r l k a t . 362.
253
"But admonish the ...true believers: admonition will help
t h e m . " ( 5 1 r55) and "Therefore give warning, if warning will avail
th e m . "(87:9)
SivSsT Efendi then enumerates the second condition
according to which the preacher should net speak about other
people in an inquisitive manner. Such an act is regarded as
unlawful by the K u r ’an and the s u n n e t . Since the display of
exorbitant behavior is h a r a m . inquisitiveness, which is an
excessive act, is also h a r a m .

To verify his words, S i v a s T Efendi
637
quotes some relevant K u r ’anic verses:
"...Do not spy on one another, nor backbite one another "(49:12)
and "Those who delight in spreading slanders against the faithful
shall be sternly punished in this life and in the n e x t .” (24:19).
'Abdiilmecld SivasT, Birgivi and KadTzade all consider the
application of el-emr b i ’l-ma'rfif ve'l-nehv ' ani’1-miinker as a
duty incumbent upon the ruler. Regarding the second condition of

t
emr b i ’l - ma'ruf. 'Abdiilmecld Sivasi mentions a case of exception.
It is incumbent upon the .judges and rulers to govern their
provinces in an inquisitive manner. Only then can they perform
their duty of protecting and guarding the land. This duty is a
farz upon them. Any action which helps the fulfillment of a farz
638
should be regarded as a farz itself.
637
SivasT, P u r e r . fol.' 73a.
638
Ibid.,, fols. 73a-73b.
254
On this subject, Birgivf quotes a tradition recorded by
Mus l i m and reported by Ebu Sa'id, where the Prophet said:
"Whoever among you sees an evil act let h im change it by his
hand. If this is not possible, let him change it by his tongue.
If he is not able to do that e i t h e r , • let him despise it in his
heart: such is the minimum manifestation of faith." In B i r g i v f ’s
view, this tradition clearly indicates that enjoining good and
forbidding evil is 1v S c i b ) incumbent upon every Muslim.
According to some scholars, rulers and people in positions of
execution should apply this duty by the hand, men of science

639
apply it by the tongue and people confirm it by the heart.
Kadlzade Helmed Efendi, in his work Kami'atu* 1 - B i d ' a .
implicitly refers to the principle of el-emr b i ’l-ma'ruf v e ’l-
nehv ' a n i ’1-miinker. According to Kadlzade, forbidding the bad
innovations ! b i d 'a mur.ke r e ) is a definite religious duty of every

6(0
Muslim. • In Tacii ’r - R e s a ’ i l . {CadTzade translates Ibn Teyaiye's
views on this religious injunction. Accordingly, the most
important duty of the ruler is to 'enjoin good and forbid evil’

641
which is a vacib for the ruler.
Apart from the above-mentioned two conditions of el-
emr b i ’l - m a ' r u f . Sivasi Efendi also enumerates the following
ones: If the preacher speaks out of feulings of rancor or
639
SirgivT, T a r T k a t . 362-363.
640
f£adlzade, Kami'a, fol. 70a.
641
KSdlzade, T a c . fols. 116a-116b.
255
prejudice, he commi.ts a sin. Moreover, his words will be
ineffective. For this reason, the preacher should be unbiased

642
Iva'iz bigaraz g e r e k t.
'AbdiilmecTd Sivasx states that the above-mentioned
conditions of
el-emr bi'l-ma'ruf are mentioned in the work
643
entitled M e v a k i f .
Nehv-i raunker has some conditions as well. First of all,
it is unlawful (ha r a m ) to say ‘'somebody did such and such an act"
simply on the basis of hearing or a supposition. In his speech,
the preacher should not specifically impute an act to a person.
Even if he hears something about a person, he should say it in a

644
concealed and generalized way.
The preacher should be conscious-of the effectiveness of
his speech when he advises the principle of nehv-i miinker. He
should remain silent when he thinks that his words will be
ineffective or will lead to hostility 1 'adavet) or obstinacy
( 'i n a d )
among the listeners. This is mentioned in Kessaf and
645
other books.
In his sermon, the preacher should not lead to feelings of
assurance or despair among the listeners. (ve vS'iza farzdir ki
642
SivasI, P u r e r , fol. 73a.
643
Ibid., foi. 72b; fSr Mevakif see note 108.
644
SivasI Efendi treats the conditions of nehv-i miinker
between fols. 73b-75a of his work P u r e r .
645
SivasI, P u r e r , fol. 73b; for Kessaf see note 164.
256
646
kimseyi emne ve v e ’se-dtisurmeve). He should speak in the most
understandable way about G o d ’s mercy, grace and kindness
particularly towards the repentant ones. H e should not let the
hearts of Muslims lose enthusiasm in their obedience to the
s e r l ’a t . At this point, SivasI Efendi refers to such books as

647
j_hya,
• Tatarhanive
w—1 and Esbah.
—
According to SivasI Efendi, it is neither the case that the
preacher is greater than Moses nor that his listeners are
inferior to Pharaoh. God ordered Moses to preach Pharaoh

648
tenderly. The preacher should act in the same way. SivasI
Efendi verifies his view with a relevant K u r ’anic verse: “Speak
to him with gentle words: he may yet take heed and fear Cur
punishment" ',20: 44!.
In his treatment of the subject, SivasI Efendi refers to
Muhylddln
• Ibn ’Arab! as well. According to 'Sevh-i
*v Z k b e r ’, the
essence of Islam is the principle of el-emr b i ’l-ma'ruf v e ’l nehv

649 !
-ani ’1-miin k e r . If this is neglected. SivasI concludes, the
buiiding of religion will collapse. Without the religion and the
646
SivasI, P u r e r . fol. 73b.
647
For ihva and Tat a r h a n i v e . see notes 142 and 424; for
Esbah see pp. 225-226.
648
SivasI, Diirer. fol. 75a.
643
As we shall see, llaÎzade opposes Muhylddln Ibn 'Arab!
on the theory of vahdet-i vucud (unity of being). On “enjoining
good and forbidding evil", however, the views of âdlzade and Ibn
'Arab! concur. As Muslims, they both submit to this duty which ,■
is a K u r ’anic injunction.
257
serl'at. the building blocks of the state no longer exist. If
nehv-i munker is abandoned, the order of the world disappears and

650
a great tumult occurs.
On the obligatory nature of 'enjoining good and forbidding
evil’, the Kaijizadelis and the Sufis are in agreement. They
quote the same Kur’anic verse to prove their, view. While SivasI
Efendi enumerates in detail the conditions of "applying this
principle, BirgivI and Kadlzade do not treat this subject.
An incident which the Ottoman traveler Evliya’ Celebi
relates demonstrates his view on "enjoining good and forbidding
evil." According to him, the officials of government have the
exclusive right to apply the principle of nehv-i munker. A
follower of Kadlzade bcught a Sahname in an auction and destroyed
its miniatures since he believed that painting is forbidden in
Islam. This HacT Mu§tafa had to appear before the Pasa for he
did not pay the auction fee. There, he defended himself saying
that he forbade evil by destroying this book. The Pa?a told him:
"You are not charged to 'forbid evil.’ But I am charged to
practice government. I’ll show you how to destroy a book worth

651
2QQ0 piasters...” In the end, he punished HSc! Mustafa.
As the incident related by Evliya’ Celebi indicates, the
KadTzadelis saw themselves responsible for 'enjoining good and
650
SivasI, Purer, fol. 75b.
651
This incident appears in the work forthcoming as
Evliva Chelebi in Bitlis. ed. Dankoff, to be published by E. J.
Brill, 378, 380, 382.
258
forbidding evil’ even,..if it may be by force. Their aggressive
acts towards the §ufIs during the second and third stages of the
movement also demonstrate their outlook. Indeed, for the
Katjizadelis who were seriât-minded reformers, fulfilling the
religious injunction of el-enfr bf,l-matruf ve’l-nehv <ar-i,I-
munker was an essential motive behind their movement. The §ufls,
by way of contrast, dealt with this subject only in. theory.
259
Innovations
Bid.tats or innovations, according to Katib £elebi, indicate

new practices introduced into religion and society during the
652
ninth century, i.e., after the Prophet’s time. At first,
every novelty was rejected as bid*at since there was no place for
them in the Kur’an or the sunnet. The following tradition was
often cited as evidence by those who opposed innovations:
Indeed, the truest of words is God’s Book,

the best of ways is that of Muhammed. The
worst of deeds is to make novelties
(muhdesat). Every novelty is a bid’at.
Every bid’at is a deviation (dalalet) and
every error leads to Hell. 653
In time, one tradition was set forth against the other and.
the concepts of "good bid *ats" (bid'a hasene) and "bad bid *ats"
654
(bid’a seyyi’e ) developed. Accepting good innovations
✓
permitted the idea of progress in society since all novelties
would no longer be regarded as contemptible. Another tradition
was put forth as counter-evidence to the above-mentioned one:
He who inaugurates a good rule of conduct

(siinnet-i hasene) will receive his reward
along with a reward which equals that of
his followers. He who inaugurates a bad
rule (siinnet-i s e w i ’e i will carry his sin
together with a sin which equals that of his
followers. 655
652 2.
Katib Celebi, Balance. 89. Also see El, s.v. "Bid'a,”
by J. Robson.
653
Authorities such as Nese’T, Ebu Davud, DarimI,
Tirmial, Ibn Mace, Ibn VaddSfc and Turtuî report this tradition
in their books. See M. TalblT""Bid'atler," A.U. ilahivat
Fakiiltesi Dergisi 23 (Ankara, 1978): 450.
654
Ibid., 458; Katib Celebi, Balance, 89.
655
This tradition is quoted by Muslim, Nese’i, Ibn Mace
and Dariml. See Talbl, "Bid'atler," 458.
260
In the seventeenth century, both the Kadizadelis and the
Sufis discussed the subject of innovations. From their writings,
a similarity between their views becomes evident on certain
aspects of this issue. For example, as we shall see, Birgivi,
the intellectual mentor of the Kadizadelis, and SivasI Efendi
agree that innovations in matters of belief are impermissible.
Their views do not necessarily concur, however, on what specific
things constitute such bid'ats.
Another major difference between the two sides was that
contrary to the Sufis who were peaceful, the £a<Jizadeli
opposition to bid'ats became the prime generator of their
movement. Indeed, as followers of the selefls. the Kadizadelis
demanded a strict obedience to the serf*at. rejecting the bid*ats
as deviations from the ftur’ar^nd the sunnet. '
Birgivi Mehmed Efendi treats this subject in his work
TarTkat-i Muhammedive where he states that it is incumbent upon
Muslims to follow the Qur’an and the sunnet strictly. Birgivi,
Kadlzade and SivasI all quote the following traditions of the
Prophet against innovations:
Muslim and Buârl recorded a tradition which ‘Aise, the
wife of the Prophet, related: "Anything which one innovates
outside of our command, i.e., religion,is rebutted." TeberanI

recorded a tradition which Guzayf b. Haris reported from the
Prophet: "A religious community which innovates a bid*at after
the time of their prophet will lose from the sunnet as much as
the bid*at which they have introduced." In another tradition
261
which TeberanI recorded and Enes related, the Prophet said:
"Truly, God does not accept the repentance of an innovator until
656
he abandons that innovation."
Both Birgivi and SivasI classify innovations into three
kinds:a- Permissible innovations (Mubah bid'ats) are practices
such as using sifts; b- Innovations- which are canonically
approved (Mvistehab bid*ats) are practices such as building
minarets and medreses. compiling books; c- Innovations which are
necessary or incumbent (vacib bid'ats) are acts such as
assembling evidence in order to refute the unbelievers. These
bid*ats are permissible in religion. They did not exist during
the Prophet’s time due to such reasons as the lack of necessity,
insufficiency of financial sources and the priority of more
important things. Birgivi and SivasI reject the innovations in
matters of belief and worship. According to Birgivi, they are
the opposite of what the followers of the sunnet (ehl-i
sunnet ve’l-cema’at) believe. One should strictly abstain from
such innovations which are close to infidelity. SivasI Efendi
defines such bid’ats as mezmum and states that there is no place

657
for them in the serl'at either by words or deeds. He then
quotes the names of some great mystics such as Bisr b. el-Haris
656
Birgivi, Tarlkat. 34-36; SivasI, Nesavih. fol. 89a;
$aqilzade, irsad. fols. 127a-127b.
657
Birgivi, Tarlkat, 37-38; SivasI, Nesavih. fol. 89b.
262
(d. 226/841), Ziin-Nun el-Misrl (d. 245/859) and Ebu Sa'Id el-
Harraz (d. 277/890) who devotedly followed the Jfur’an and the
658
sunnet.
According to Birgivi, some Sufis of his time claim to reach
God by their religious practices such as the halvet and mystical
visions. In his view, by these acts they despise the serf'at or
'ilm-i zahir which they contrast to spiritual knowledge or 'ilm-
i batm. Birgivi treats such mystics with great wrath, saying
that their belief is perverse. He then quotes from 'Abdulkerlm
el-Kuseyrl’s (d. 465/1072) Risale the words of some great Sufis
who obeyed the §ur’&n and the sunnet strictiy. Besides the ones
cited by SivasI Efendi, he also mentions Bayezld el-Bistaml (d.
261/874), Seri es-Sakatl (d. 256/870) and Ciinevd el-Bagdadl (d.

659
298/910). ' As we see, Birgivi and SivasI have different
conceptions of what might constitute an "innovation in matters of
belief." The example of halvet which Birgivi gives here, for
instance, would not be appreciated by SivasI.
Kadizade Mefcmed-Efendi treats the subject of innovations in
his works irsadu*1-'Ukul and Kami'atu'1-Bid'at. He supports his
view with Kur’anic verses and traditions of the Prophet. In the
second chapter of irsad. £a(jlzade quotes the following verses
which admonish Muslims to obey the Kur’an and the sunnet: "Say:
If you love Allah follow me. Allah will love you and forgive you
658
SivasI, Nesavih. fol. 90b.
659
Birgivi, farlkat. 39-41.
263
your sins. Allah Is forgiving and merciful" (3:31); "Say: Obey
Allah and the Apostle. If they give no heed, then, truly, Allah
does not love the unbelievers" (3:32) and "Believers, obey Allah
and the Apostle and those in authority among you. Should you
disagree about anything refer it to Allah and the Apostle, if
you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. This will in the
end be better and more just" (4:59). Kadlzade also quotes verses
660
7:158 and 33:45 in order to prove his point.
Following the above-mentioned Kur’anic verses, âcjizade
quotes many traditions of the Prophet againstinnovations. One
of them is the tradition, which we have cited in the beginning of
this section, to the effect that every innovaton is a deviation

661
from the right path and leads to Hell. / He also quotes
traditions such as the following: In a tradition related by
Bu{jarl, Ebu Hureyre reports from the Prophet: "All of my ummet
enters Heaven except fdr those who avoid to do so." They asked
the Prophet: "Who refuses to enter Heaven"? The Prophet said:
"He who obeys me enters Heaven. He who rebels refuses to enter

662
there." Muslim records a tradition reported by Enes b. Malik
from the Prophet: "He who turns away from my sunnet is not among
663
my followers."
660
Kadlzade, irsad. f5ls. 124a-125b.
661
Ibid., fol. 1,26a. I have quoted this tradition on
page 260.
662
Ibid., fol. 126a.
663
Ibid., fol. 127a.
In his work Kami'atu’1-Bid*at. Ka4izade quotes verse 3:104
and states that it is a farz upon Muslims to forbid innovations.
He then quotes some relevant traditions on this subject as
evidence: "May there be good tidings to those who correct what
people have distorted in my sunnet." Again, the Prophet said:
"When innovations emerge, let the scholar demonstrate his
knowledge. Unless he acts this way, may the malediction of God’s

664
angels and of people be upon him."
'Abdulmecld Sivasi treats the subject of innovations in his

665
work Nesavihu*1-Muluk. He first notes that following the
words and deeds (sunnet) of the Prophet is a farz-i kifaye.
Muslims who fulfill this duty will be pardoned. The 72 nations
who deviate from this path are in corruption. Sivasi Efendi then
quotes verse 3:31 from the Kur’an along with two' traditions.
Enes reported from the Prophet: "He who restores my sunnet truly
loves me. He who loves me will be together with me in Heaven."

I
Ahmed, Muslim and BuharT relate a tradition which Ibn Mes'ud
reported from the Prophet: "One will be resurrected with his
loved ones." Sivasi Efendi adds that one should follow the
666
words and deeds of those whom he loves.
After having quoted some other relevant £ur’anic verses,
Sivasi Efendi refers to a tradition of the Prophet recorded by
Ebu Davud and reported by ‘irba? b. Sariye. As we have mentioned,
$aqlzade quotes this tradition, too.
664
&a<jlzade, Kami 'a. fol. 70a.
665
Sivasi, Nesavih. fols. 83a-90b.
666
Ibid., fol. 83b,
ogj
Once the - Prophet performed the ritual
worship with us. He then turned his face to us
and gave a sermon in such a manner that we shed
tears and our hearts were full of grief. One of
the e^hab said: '0 Prophet, it is as if this is a
sermon of farewell. It pained us greatly. What
is your last injunction’? Th Prophet said: Have
fear of Allah and obey the ruler of Islam even if
he may be an Abyssinian slave. People who will
live after me will witness much disorder. In that
time of quarrel, it is your duty to follow my
sunnet. Refrain from innovations and keep away
from innovators. Every novelty is a bid'at and
every bid'at leads to corruption (dalalet). 667
Sivasi Efendi then quotes a tradition related by BeyhakI and
reported by Ibn 'Abbas from the Prophet: He who firmly adheres
to my sunnet when my community is in a time of disorder, will

668
acquire the merit of a hundred martyrs in God’s sight."
■■ Contrary to ftadlzade and Sivasi, the following generations

/•
of the kadizadelis and the Halvetl Sufis do not discuss the
subject of innovations in their works. As we have seen, Van!
Efendi, for example, describes the performance of certain kinds
of ikr aloud as an innovation, but he does not deal with bid'ats

7
669
separately.
667
668
Ibid., fol. 88b.
669
For a discussion of this matter see pp. 210-212 above.
266
Studying the -Rational Sciences and Mathematics
In the previous centuries, natural and physical sciences
were in the curriculum of Ottoman medreses. As we shall see from
Katib Celebi’s account below, from the seventeenth century
onwards subjects related to flkh took precedence over the
rational and positive sciences such as mathematics,, astronomy and

670
philosophy. Taskopruluzade Afcmed Efendi (d. 965/1561), the
Ottoman scholar and medrese teacher, included the natural i
sciences, mathematics and logic in his classification of the
sciences which may be a sign of the importance attached to them

671
in this period.
Katib Celebi, in his work MIzanu’l-Hak. underlines the
necessity for studying the rational sciences which comprise
theology, mathematics, natural sciences and their branches. He
then enumerates some well-known scholars who took interest in
these fields, such as Imam! Gazall (d. 505/1111), Kaî Beyzavl (d.
691/1291?), 'Adududdln el-Tc! (d. 756/1355), Seyyld Serif el-
Curcanr (d. 816/1413), Celaleddln ed-Devvanl (d. 908/1502-3) and

672
his students.
670
KStib Celebi, Balance. 25-26; Adnan Adivar, Osman1i
Turklerinde ilim. 4th ed. (Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1982), 126.
671
inalcik, Ottoman Empire. 165.
672
267
Katib Celebi also states that from the first days of the
Ottoman state until the time of Suleyman the Magnificent, the
*ulema* reconciled the sciences of hikmet (philosophy) and
seri'at. Mehmed II (1451-1481), in the endowment deed tvakfire)
of his Medaris-i Semanive. ordered that 'Notes on the Tecrid’ and
the 'Commentary on the Mevakif* be included in the curriculum.
The succeeding teachers dropped these books considering them as
philosophy and set out to teach Hidave and Ekmel instead. Since
these two books were insufficient for education by themselves,

673
they too were cancelled in time.
Katib Celebi explains the reason for the denial of the
rational sciences in the following way:
In the beginning of Islam, the Companions of

the Prophet applied themselves to the Book
and' the Sunna which they had received from
him and handed on, and permitted no work on
the sciences apart from a thorough grounding
in the principles of the Faith. They showed
the utmost rigour in prohibiting. ...After
the Islamic sciences had been codified, and
protected and safeguarded against any
possible corruption, the leaders of the
Muslims realised that the first generation’s
prohibition had been for this very purpose.
The danger once eliminated, this purpose was
no longer valid...But many unintelligent
people, seeing that the transmission of these
sciences had once been banned, remained as
inert as rocks, frozen in blind imitation of
the ancients...They passed for learned men,
while all the time they were ignoramuses,
fond of disparaging what they called 'the
philosophical sciences’, and knowing nothing
673
Ibid., 26; Tecrldu’1-Kelam is a famous work on
dogmatics by Nasreddln Muhammed b. Muhammed et-Tusi
(d. 672/1273), a §i'T philosopher, mathematician and astronomer;
for Mevakif see note 108; 'All b. Muhammed Seyyid $erif
el-CiircanT (d. 816/1413) wrote commentaries both on TecrTd and
Mevakif: for Hidave see note 350; For Ekmel see note 302.
£3
of earth or sky. The admonition 'Have they
not contemplated the kingdom of Heaven and
Earth’(Kor.7:184) made no impression on them:
they thought 'contemplating’ the world and
the firmament meant staring at them like a
cow. 674
Perhaps the objection to studying the rational sciences and
mathematics was rooted in this concern • for following the
practices during the time of the Prophet and his Companions.
Indeed, an examination of the works by the kadizadelis on this
subject indicates their strict adherence to Islamic sciences and
catechism ('ilmihal). This suggests that the Kadlzadeli movement
might have been influential on the change in the curriculum of
the medreses at the expense of the rational sciences. Onthe’
following pages, we shall briefly examine the views of the
kadizadelis and the §ufls on studying the sciences. ,
Birgivi, the intellectual mentor of the Kadizadelis, begins
his discussion of studying the sciences by quoting the verse "Ask

I
the people of the Book, if you doubt this" (16:43). He then
quotes a tradition which Enes b. Malik related from the Prophet:
"It is incumbent (farz) uoon everv Muslim to seek for science be

675
they man or woman."
In his TarTkat-i Muhammedive. Birgivi classifies sciences
in three categories. 1. Sciences which God orders Muslims to
674
675
Birgivi, Tarlkat. 65.
2S9
study. These are the farf-i 'avn and the far2-i kifaye. 2.
Sciences which are forbidden. 3. Sciences which are good and

676
pious. (mendtxb).
1. Sciences the investigation of which is a farz-i 'avn study
the foundation of such acts as to know and perform the.
religious duties, e.g., ritual worship, fasting, the
pilgrimage and the zekat: to put one’s 'trust in God
(tevekkul); to know the essentials of the *ilmihal
(catechism). Birgivi
quotes from Ta*llmu’l-Muterallim in
677
order to support his views. In general, the duty of
performing a farz is also a farz. Under the category of the
farz-i kifaye are the sciences of fikh. tefslr. hadis. usul'
and kira’at as well as mathematics. (hesab). Birgivi
quotes from Gazall and Bustanu*1-*Arifin in order to support

678
his views.
2. In Birgivi’s view, the sciences of kelam and astronomy can
be studied only under certain conditions. Otherwise they
are forbidden. According to Hulaga, it is not advisable to
study kelam and to enter discussions on this subject.
Birgivi also quotes from BezzazI saying that scholastic
theology is necessary in certain cases, i.e., to silence the
676
Ibid., 65-66.
677
Ta*llnrii’1-Miite'allim is the only known work of the
Arab scholar Burhaneddin ez-ZernucI who lived in the 12th
century. It concerns matters related to sciences and education.
678
Bustanu’1-*ArifIn is a work by Ebu’1-Leys Na§r b.
Muhammed es-Semerkandl (d. 376/986), a mystic and commentator on
the IJur’an.
270
opponent and to prove the creed of the ehl-i sunnet. In the
view of Ebu Hanife, one should study scholastic theology
only to erase suspicions on a certain

subject.
679
Otherwise this act becomes a disagreeable one. (mekruh).
As for astronomy, this science requires intelligence and
hard work. Ordinary people can deal with this subject only
to learn the times of prayer ind to determine the kxble.

680
This is mentioned in Hulasa and Bustanu*1-'ArifIn.
According to Birgivi, it is allowed in religion to study
geometry.
3. The mendub sciences include knowledge about deeds such as
nafile. sunnet or mekruh. knowing the acts of worship which
are farz-i‘avn and farz-x kifave. Birgivi mentions medicine
as an example for mendub sciences.
As we have seen in examining his life,Kadlzade strictly

681
opposed logicians and philosophers in his sermons. According
to him, Islamic sciences consisting of fikh. tefsir and hadTs are

682
essential. In his risale. he divides the sciences into
683
farz- 1 'avn and farz-x kifave. He also quotes Gazall’s words
saying that a person who begins his studies by a science other

them catechism is of no use.
679
Birgivi, Tarlkat. 6 6 -6 8 .
680
Kxble: direction of Mecca (to which a Muslim turns in
worship), Rednouse. 648; for Hulasa and Bustanu1 1-'Arifin. see
notes 600 and 678.
681
682
'u'ssakxzade. Zevl. fol. 26b.
683
Kadlzade, Iman ve Namaz Risalesi. fols. 74b-75a.
271
pfr}Izade also "refers to Ta^rmu* 1-Mutetalliia so as to
684
clarify his views. According to this book, *iInitial
(catechism) is similar to food which the body needs all the time.
All other sciences are like medicine which should be taken only
when necessary. According to Kadizade, ‘ilmihal is the
nourishment of the soul. If a person does not eat bread or other
kinds of food, he dies in less than a month’s time. The same
situation holds true for the soul. A person who has not studied
catechism at all has a dead soul.
Kadlzade stresses the fact that all school teachers need to
know the *ilmihal. Teachers should not teach the sciences which
are farz-i kifave instead of the farz-x 'avn. If they do so,
they destroy the religion of Islam with a pickaxe and a shovel in
their hands. (Elbette farz-x ’avn olan 'ilim dururken farz-i
kifave olan 'ilimleri okutmavalar. Okuturlarsa eilerine birer

685
kazma ve birer kiileng a i m dln-i Islami vxkarlar). KSdlz&de
does not specify which sciences fall under these!two categories.
He, however, attaches a great importance to *ilmihal (classified
as farz-x ‘avn by Birgivi) andto fxkh. tefslr and hadrs
(classified as farz-x kifave by Birgivi). We can therefore
conclude that pfcjxzade’s classification is essentially similar to
that of Birgivi.
Cstuvanl Efendi does not give as detailed an argument as
Kadlzade on this subject. "In a separate category (bab), he
684
For Ta'llmu’1-Miite‘allim see note 677.
685
pidlzade, Iman ve Namaz Risalesi. fol. 75a.
272
indicates the principle concerning the sciences. Accordingly, it
is a farz for Muslims to study the sciences which are farz.
Likewise, it is a vacib for Muslims to study the sciences which
are vacib. The same rules holds true for sciences classified as
siinne or mustehab. Cstuvanl Efendi points out that the sciences
which TarTkat-i Muhammadiy«» describes as farz-i cavn are included

686
in his first aforesaid category.
Among the Sufis, we only have the views of 'Abdulmecid
Sivasi on this subject. He states that it in incumbent upon
Muslims to study those sciences which are necessary to fulfill
the farz-i ’avn. The reason is that any act which leads to the
performance of a farz is a farz itself. The master has the duty
to teach the sciences to his slaves. The 'ulema*. in general,

687
are in charge of teaching the sciences.
As we have seen, Birgivi gives the most detailed treatment
of the sciences. In his view, studying mathematics is an act
which is a farz-i kifave. Studying kelam is contingent upon
certain conditions. Otherwise, it is forbidden. Klatjlzade and
Ustiivanl do not mention their views on studying these two
sciences, but in general they follow Birgivi*s classification.
686
Ustuvanl, Feva*id...Fera* id. fols. 70b-71a.
687
Sivasi, Leta* if. fol. 151.
While Kadizade praises flkh, tefsir and hadTs, he despises
688
philosophy and logic. With this negative attitude, he must
have been influential in restricting the study of the rational
sciences in the medreses.
688
For a more detailed treatment of Kadizade’s vieys on
this subject see pp. 71-72 above.
The Faith of Pharaoh
One of the controversial issues between the gagxzSdelis and

the Sufis was whether Pharaoh died in faith or as an infidel.
This question arose from §eyh ■ Muhylddln Ibn 'Arabl’s (d.
638/1240) discussion in his Fususii*1-Hibem where he interpreted
some relevant Kur’anic verses on this subject in order to reach

689
the conclusion that Pharaoh died as a believer. Accordingly,
the verse "But as he was drowning, Pharaoh cried: Now I believe
that there is no god save the God in whom the Israelites believe.
To Him I give up myself" (10:90) confirms the faith of Pharaoh.
Katib Celebi summarizes Ibn ‘Arabl’s view, saying: "now the
state of drowning is not like the state of imminent death, that
this should be regarded as the declaration of faith of one in

690
total despair." His confession of faith is therefore
accepted.
In the following verse, God told Pharaoh: "Now you
believe: But before this you were a rebel and a wrongdoer"
(10:91). God rebuked Pharaoh for having delayed his faith, but
this does not show that He did not accept Pharaoh’s confession.
The verse "He shall stand at the head of his people on the Day of
Resurrection and lead them into the fire of Hell" (11:98) does
not necessitate the infidelity of Pharaoh. According to Seyh Ibn
689
Muljylddln Ibn 'Arab!, rustis iil-Hikem. 5th ed., trans.
M. Nuri Gencosman (Istanbul: Istanbul Kitabevi, 1981), 203-223.
690
275
'Arab!, the salvation- of Pharaoh is confirmed by the verse "We
shall save your body this day, so that you may become a sign to
all posterity: for most men give no heed to Our

691
signs."(10:92). Ibn 'Arab! explained the meaning of this
verse in the following way:
Today I shall grant you bodily salvation by

casting you up on the shore, and I shall also
grant salvation to your soul in the next world, sc
that you may be a great signofMy power ’among the
people who shall come after you, and none shall
despair of mercy. 692
According to Ibn ’Arab!, only God knows the truth about the faith
of Pharaoh. People in general believe him to be an evil-doer,

693
but there is no evidence from the £ur’an to prove this.
$eyh Ibn 'ArabI reached the above-mentioned views by
following 'the method of purification’ (tasfive metodu1 which,
according to his claim, allowed him to witness spiritual
mysteries as a result of ascetic discipline and mystical
exercises. Celaleddln ed-Dewanl (d. 908/1502-3), the Persian
scholar, reached the same conclusion as ?eyh Ibn 'Arab! through
'the method of speculation’ (nazar metodu)which, Katib Celebi
explains, is based on deduction by intellectual and traditional

694
proofs.
691
Muhylddln Ibn 'Arab!, Fusus ul-Hikem. 220-221; Katib
Celebi, Balance. 75-76.
692
Cited by Katib Celebi, Balance. 76.
693
Ibid., 76; Muhylddln Ibn 'ArabI, Fusus ul-Hikem. 221.
694
The matter came to the fore again in the seventeenth
century. KacJIzade Helmed Efendi treated this subject in his work
irsadii’l-'Ukul. He states that according to the misbelievers
(zindlks), Pharaoh died free from sins and with the faith which
God gave him at the moment of drowning. In pidlzade’s view,
those who think this way deny the nass in verse 2 2 , the
traditions of the Prophet and the general concurrence of legists.
If faith during a period of despair was accepted, these sources
of evidence would not mention Pharaoh as the first one among

695
those who will enter Hell.
'Abdiilmecld Sivasi interpreted Muljyiddln Ibn 'Arabl’s views
on the faith of Pharaoh. In his work Hedivetu’l-thvan.

U"
Mehmed
•
Nazml Efendi summarizes 'Abdiilmecld Sivasi’s interpretation by a
threefold explanation:first of all, the mezheb of SeyhIbn

696
'ArabI is Malikl. The Malikls accept Iman-i ve’s as. valid.
Therefore, according to them it is correct to say that Pharaoh
died as a believer. Secondly, perhaps there was an intrigue in
this matter. (DesTse olmak muhtemeldir). Namely, somebody may
have changed the words of Ibn 'ArabI in his work. Thirdly,
Sivasi Efendi symbolically interprets Ibn 'Arabl’s explanation of
this subject. Accordingly Musa is accepted as the soul, Pharaoh
as nefs-i f»mm5r<»r Aaron as 'akl and Karun as the devil. The
695
Kadlzade, irsad. fols. 166a-166b.
696 --
Iman-i ve’s: a faith in time of adversity or despair.
Redhouse. 533.
country of Egypt symbolizes Pharaoh’s sultanate in the body and
697
the conquest of nefs-i e i m n a r s i n the heart. The power of the
rod of Moses explains that passions are defeated by the soul,

698
etc.
The second explanation seems to derive from a risale in
Arabic, aonarent1v a commentary on a work concerning the faith of

699
Pharaoh. Its author is not mentioned, but it appears that he
was a disciple or a friend of 'Abdiilmecld Sivasi and collected
the necessary information on this subject by the order of the
Seyh. This risale was compiled in the year 1021/1612-13 in order
to explain §eyh Ibn 'ArabI’s view on this subject:
In the 62nd part of his book Fiituhat. Muhylddln Ibn 'ArabI made
it clear that Pharaoh is among the people who will stay in Hell
eternally. Ibn 'Arab! wrote this work a short time before his
death. It therefore reflects his true view on this subject.
Moreover, many scholars consider confession of belief in a state
of despair as unacceptable. The compiler quotes verse 10:90 as a

700
piece of evidence.
697
Nefs-i emmara: the soul which inclines towards evil
and bestial desires. See Ebu Bekir Muftammed b. isfcafc
el—Kalahari, DoSus Sevrinde Tasavvuf iTa'arrufi. trans., Suleyman
Uludag (Istanbul: Dergah Y a y m l a n , 1979), 294.
698
M. Na?ml, Hedive, fols. 61a-61b.
699
Fir'avunun fmamna Pair Risale Serhi. Suleymaniye L. ,
MS. 294/4. fols. 93b-96b.
700
Ibid., fol. 94a. "
278
Contrary to his view in
Futuhat, Muhyiddlh Ibn 'Arab!
701
argued in Fusus that Pharaoh died in faith* Having examined
the copy of Fuû^ in Egypt, the author reaches the conclusion
that this work was distorted by the copier. Moreover, through a
general concurrence (icma’-i ummet.K the legists consider Pharaoh

702
an unbeliever. He tb-n quotes the verse. "I am your supreme
Lord, he said” (79:24) and "Allah smote him with .the scourge of
this life and the life to come" (79:25) in order to prove his
point. Some commentators have

interpreted the drowning of '
703
Pharaoh as a worldly torment meant for him.
Sivasi Efendi apparently feels close to Kadlzade’s position
on the faith of Pharaoh, but feels obliged to defend Ibn 'ArabI.
His defense is that the text of the latter was probably forged.
At the same time, however, Sivasi feels the need 'to find other
explanations of Ibn 'ArabI’s view as well. Presumably his
purpose is to act cautiously in this matter and to ' exhaust all
possibilities. !
701
For more information on Futuhatu *1-Mekkive and
Fususii*I-Hikem see iA, 1971 ed., s.v. "Muhyl-d-Dln 'ArabI," by
Ahmed Ates• "
702
Fir'avunun Imanma Pa’ir Risale Serhi. fol. 94b.
703
Ibid., fol. 95a.
The Malediction of Yezld
For Muslims, and particularly the §i'Is, the martyrdom of
Hiiseyin and members from the Prophet’s family in KarbalaJ is
remembered as a day of mourning (10 Muharrem 61/October 10, 680).
Yezld b. Mu'aviye was nominated as the second Umayyad caliph by
his father in the year 680. By his order, Hiisevin., the grandson
of the Prophet, and his followers who refused to recognize the
caliphate of Yezld, were massacred in Karbala’. The HasimTs, the
tribe of 'All b. Ebu Talib, expressed their grief and anger by
cursing YezTd. Gradually,

this practice became a custom among
704
the Si'Xs and was spread among some SiinnTs as well.
In general, the Si'I 'ulema* considered the malediction of
Yezld lawful. Some Sunni scholars such as the Safi'I faklh
Ebu’l-Hasan 'All b. Muhammed el-Kiya el-Harras! (d. 504/1110-11)
and later,' Sa'deddln et-Taftazanl !d. 791/1389) approved of this

705
practice as well. A majority of Sunni scholars, however,
disapproved of denouncing Yezld. Imam Gazall (d. 505/1111)
prohibited this practice by his fetva where he objected to
cursing anybody, even an infidel or Satan. Imam Siraceddln 'All
'Osman el-u'sl (d. 575/ll7 9), a Hanefl lawyer from Farghana, wrote
a treatise in Arabic verse entitled Yekulu’1-'Abd. in which he
said:
"And after death Yazid was no more cursed."
704 2
IA, 1950 ed., s.v. "IJuseyin,” by Ahmed Ate?; El, s.v.
"Yazid b. Mu'iwiya,” by H. Lammens; Katib Qelebi, Balance, 84-88.
705
For TaftazanI see note 108.
280
According to Katib Qelebi, common people continued to think of
Yezid abominable and made his name a symbol of abuse in
706
conversations.
Scholars in later periods continued to express their ideas
on this subject. Kmalizade 'All Qelebi (d. 980/1572), for
instance, treats malediction in three grades according to the
manner of its expression: a- In a general way; the malediction
of God on an infidel, b-
in a particular way: the malediction
707
of God on the Rafizis, c-in a determined way: the 7
708
malediction of God on Ebu Cehil and Yezld. According to
Kmalizade, the first andthe second kinds of malediction are
acceptable. The third one is valid only for those who died as
infidels but not for those who are alive. The reason is that
whether they will die as infidels ' is not certain. The
malediction of Yezld is not proper since it has not been
definitely proven that he ordered the assasination of pfiseyin and
of members of the Prophet's family. Even if we accept that he
did, he later repented and hence should be regarded as pardoned
by God. ICmalizade adds that when ValjsT, who killed the
Prophet’s uncle, converted to Islam and repented, God forgave

709
Kim
706
Katib Celebi, Balance. 8 6 .
707
The Rafizis: a heterodox branch of the §i'Ts who
vilify the memory of Ebu Bekir and 'Omer. See Katib Celebi,
Balance. 87. The Ottomans us'ed the term for all Iranian Si'Is.
708
Ebu CehiL: an enemy of the Prophet who was killed
during the battle of Bedir (3/624).
709
kmalizade 'All Ceiebi, Ahlak-i 'Ala’T (Bulak,
1248/1832-33), 180.
281
Birgivi Mehmed Efendi, the intellectual sientor of the
Kadlzadelis, expresses his views on the subject of malediction in
general. In his view, which is similar to KxnalizSde’s opinion,
cursing somebody is permissible only if that particular person
such as Ebu Cehil died as an infide.l. God did not order even
cursing Satan as a duty incumbent upon the Muslims. He then
quotes two traditions of the Prophet to' this effect: Buljari and
Muslim narrate from IJahhak who reports from the Prophet: "The
malediction of a Muslim is the same as killing him." Muslim

/
narrates from Ebu Derda* who reports from the Prophet: "Without
doubt, cursers can neither be witnesses nor intercessors on

710
doomsday..."
Contrary to the views of Birgivi, the HalvetT Seylj Miyazl-i

711
MisrT approves of cursing Yezid. He first presents the
variety of opinions on this subject. Sa'deddln et-Taftazanl in
his commentary on *Aka’id.

indicated that there is disagreement
712
among scholars on this subject. According to!Hulasa and other
books, it is not proper even to curse Yezld and gaccac since the
713
Prophet forbade the practice of cursing Muslims. Some others
710
Birgivi, T a r T k a t . 326-328.
711
N. Misri, Irfan Sofralan. 149-152. The author
treats this subject in the 60th Ma *ide of his work.
712
For *Aka*id see note 108.
713
For Hulaâ see note 600; gaccac b. Yusuf (d. 95/714):
an Arab statesman known for his oppression.
282
argued that Yezld became an infidel by ordering to kill Huseyin.
Therefore, it is permissible to curse him and his supporters. In
Niyazf-i Mx§rx’s view, the fact that Yezld ordered the massacre
of Huseyin, and his treacherous behavior towards the Prophet’s
family are all realities known by a general consensus of
reporters (tevgtur).
This holds true despite the fact that the details on this
714
subject are furnished by a single source. "Therefore," says
Xiyazx-i Mi§rx, "we cannot keep silent on this subject any
longer. May God’s malediction be upon Yezld, his supporters and
friends." He adds that the reason why Imam-x A'zam did not curse.
Yezld was only because he feared his supporters. This behavior

715
is allowed in order to avoid the oppression of" cruel people.
In another risale where N‘iyazl-i Mx§rx argues that Hasan
and Huseyin are prophets, he approves of the malediction of
Yezxd. In his view, those who deny the prophethood of Hasai> aftd
Huseyin and those who do not curse Yezxd should be considered as

73.6
Yezxd themselves.
Finally, let us briefly examine Katib Qelebi’s view on this
subject. After stating that scholars such as Imam Gazall and
714
(Her ne kadar taf^xlat-teferru’at-ahada davanxvorsa
da). N. Mx§rx, irfan Sofralarx. 149-150. Haber-i vahid:
tradition supplied by only one person. See Redhouse. 429.
715
N. Misrx, Irfan. Sofralari. 151-152.
716
N. Mx§rx, 1 Akxdetu’1-Mxsrx. fols. 55a-55b.
283
Imam Siraceddfn 'All 'Osman el-U$i disapproved the practice of
cursing Yezld, Katib Celebi continues:
But since his time, the practice of thinking ill

of Yazid, as of Pharaoh, and regarding him as
damned, has taken root among the common people:
his name has become, a . byword in abuse and
vituperation. The original passions are
disregarded, and through sheer imitation ■
expressions such as 'Neither for love of 'All nor
hatred of Mu'awiya’ have become current, . and most
people have fallen into the way of
cursing...Debate on this subject with them is
meaningless, for their motives are vain fanaticism
or ignorance, and imitation of others. The man
who seeks the middle course will choose, without >
rancour, the way of the Sunnite Ulema and will
follow the fetwa of the Imam Ghazall. 717
717
Katib Uelebi, Balance. 86-37.
284
According to Katib Celebi, yet another controversial issue
between the Sufis and the Kadlzadelis was the immortality of
Hizir, a popular figure in mysticism and the "servant of God" in

718
the ljur’anic story where he teaches divine wisdom to Moses.
On this subject I have not found a relevant work by either the
Kadlzadelis or the Sufis, with the exception of those by Niyazl-i

719
MisrT.
In the Kur’an, the story of Moses and Hizir is told in sura
18:60-82. Although the name "Hizir" does not appear in the
Kur’an, the commentators and traditionists refer to him by this
name. Books of tradition also provide answers to some basic
questions related to the story such as why Moses set out to meet
Hizir.' According to a tradition, one day the Israelites asked
Moses who the wisest person or. earth was. He replied: "I am the
wisest one". This answer sparked God’s fury who revealed to
718
For an extensive treatment of the subject of gizir,
see Ahmet Ya§ar Ocak, tslam-Turk tnanclannda Hizir Yahut
Hizir-ilyas Kultu. Turk Kulturunii Arastirma Enstitusu Yaymlari,
no. 54 (Ankara: Ankara Universitesi Basiaevi, 1985,*; also see
El, s.v. "al-Khadir." by A. J. Viensinck.
719 Bursali Meljmed Tahir mentions a risale by 'Abdulafâd

Nurl Efendi on the life of gizir and Ilyas which I have not been
able to detect. The work is entitled Risale ft Havati*1-Hizir ve
ilvas. See M. Tahir, OM, 1:121.
285
Moses that there was a wiser servant of His at the confluence of
720
the two seas (mecma *G *1-bahrevn).
According to the Kur’anic story, at the place where the two
seas meet, Moses meets Hizir whom he follows in order to benefit
from his knowledge. When during their journey, Hiiir commits
some seemingly outrageous acts, Moses becomes impatient and asks
why. At the end of the story, Hizir explains the reasons for his
behavior to Moses. In Hodgson’s words:
The immediate point of the story in the Qur’an is /

to prefigure the righteousness of God’s Judgement
by showing even a great prophet convicted of
overconfidence in his own judgement. But already
in the Qur’an, the story must have served- to evoke
a figure and a situation deeply rooted in Semitic
lore. Elements of the story go back to the
Babylonian Gilgamesh epic and to the legend of
Alexander of Macedon: the figure is the hidden
saint who will never die but wanders secretly
' among mankind. The immediate antecedent of most
of the story was Jewish; among Jews the figure
took the form of Elijah, who had been taken up
alive into heaven. The place where the two seas
meet-at the end of the world- is the spring of
water of Life which will confer immortality, and
Moses is in quest of it; the Qur’an suggests that
what is sought is to be found in a wisdom only
barely to be glimpsed by human beings. 721
720
This information is furnished in the books of Bu&ari
and Muslim. See Zebidl, Tecr~d. 1:118-124. It is also related
by Niyazl-i Mi^rl in his Risale-i Hizrive-i Kadlme. fol. 41a.
There is disagreement among^scholars as to where the confluence
of the two seas is. See El, s.v. "al-Khadir." Sources which
later interpreted the Eur’anic story, such as the Mesnevi of
Celaleddln Rumi, consider the mecma *u ’1-bahrevn an allegory for
extremely remote travel, or for the end of the earth. See
Margaret Ann Mills, "Exploring an Archetype," in Mevlana
Giildestesi 1971 (Aspects of Mevlana 1971). comp. Annemarie
Schimmel (Ankara: Guven Matbaasi, 1971), 43-62.
721
Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Venture of Tglam. vol.2,
The Expansion of Islam in the Middle Periods (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1974), 460-461.
286
According to a widespread popular belief, gizir is still
alive despite the lack of evidence in $ur’anic verses and
traditions of the Prophet on this subject. Besides some scholars
such as Sa'lebl, MalcdisT, 'Aynl and Ibn Haceru’1-AskalanI, the
mystics supported this view .and contributed to its

722
ramification. In the seventeenth century, Kbpriiluzade Nu'mSn
b. Mustafa, an Ottoman statesman and writer,

wrote a risale in
723
Arabic in order to prove the immortality of Hi2ir.
Traditionists and scholars of fikh in general refute the'
view that Hizir is alive. Among such scholars are ButjarT, Ahmed
724
b. Hanbel, Ibnu’l-Eslr, Ibnii’1-Cevzi, NevevI and Ibn Kesir.
Their principal sources of evidence are Kur’anic verses and
traditions of the Prophet. In verse 21:34 God addressed the
Prophet by saying: • "No man before you have We made Immortal.”
In a tradition to this effect, the Prophet said that in a hundred
years’ time, no one among the people who are alive now will
722
Ahmed b. Muhammed es-Sa'lebT (d. 429/1038), a
well-known commentator and scholar of 'aka’id: Ebu’l-Fazl
Muhammed o. Tahir el-Makdisl (d. 507/1113), a traditionist of the
12th century; Ebu Mubemmed Mahmud el-'Aynl (d. 855/1451), a
historian and scholar of fikh; for Ibn Hacerfi’1-Askalanr see
note 459.
TO3
Kopriiiiizade Nu'man b. Mu§tafa, el-*Adi f1

Hali*1-Hadir. Koprxilu L., III. Kisim, MS. 148. The reference to
this work is in A. Y. Ocak, Hizir. 68-69.
724
Muhammed b. isma’il el-Buharl (d. 256/869): a famous
traditionist and owner of one of the six compilations of hadTs:
Ibnu’l-Eslr ‘izzeddin Ebu’l-Hasan 'All b. M u h a m m e d (d. 630/1234):
the author of Kamil fl’t-Tarih: for Ibnu’l-Cevzi and NevevI, see
notes 631 and 570; Ibn Keîr 'imadeddin isma'Tl b. 'Omer
(d. 774/1373): a historian and traditionist of Syria under the
Bahrid Mamluk dynasty.
287
725
remain. Among Ottoman writers, KStib Qelebi rejects the
immortality of gizir. He states that death is unavoidable for
every living thing unless there is a supernatural event such as
the miracle related to the prophet Jesus. This should, however,
be supported by a definite scriptural evidence. He then
continues:
Now if by the 'life’ of Khidr we are to understand

the sloughing of mortality and joining the ranks
of the spiritual beings, the kind of evidence
submitted in respect of him, as in the case of
Jesus, may give validity to the claim. But Khidr
must then be in the same state as Jesus was when
he was raised up. Jesus held no physical
association or converse with the sons of his own
kind, and no more could Khidr do so. 726
Katib Celebi does not mention the view of the £adizadelis or the
Sufis
*
on-the subject of Hizir.
w
✓
XiyazT-i MisrT symbolically interprets the story of Moses
and Hizir in the Qur’an. He does not, however, say anything as
to whether Hizir reached eternal life at all. He first quotes
the verse 18:60 from the Kur’an: "Moses said tohis servant: I
will journey on until I reach the land where the two seas meet,
though I may march for ages." According to MisrT, the two seas
are the sciences of the serT’at and the hakikat. Eizir’s
position at the confluence of two seas (mecma cu *1 -bahrevn)
725
ZebidT, TecrTd, 1:113. This tradition is quoted in
the books of reliable traditiSnists such as Buharl and Muslim.
726
288
symbolizes his possession of both sciences. God’s sending Moses
to Hizir means that man can reach perfection only through ’ilm-i
727
ledun (knowledge of Divine Providence).
When at their first meeting, , Moses wants to accompany
Hizir, the latter warns him that he does not know enough and
therefore cannot bear with him. In Niyazi-i Mifrl’s view, this
response of Hizir means that at first the science of the haklkat
may conflict with the science of the seri'at even though the
possessor of the serT’at can be as knowledgeable a person as
Moses. In the end, Moses apologizes for being impatient and
asking questions. According to NiyazT-i Mi§rl, this denotes his

ability to accept the film-i ledun.
727
N. Misri, irfan Sofralan. 137-142. Miyazi-i MisrT
treats the subject of gizir in the 58th Mai *de of this work as
well as in two risales: Risale-i Bizrjve-i Cedrde. fois.
46a-48h; Risale-i Hizrive-i KadTme. fols. 40a-46a.
289
The Faith of the Prophet’s Parents
Already before the controversies between the K54xzadelis
and the §ufls, Fahreddxn er-RazT in his Kur’anic commentary
entitled Tefsfr-i KebTr and Ce'lale’ddln es-SuyutT in his work

728
Mecmu‘atu’l-Mesa’ili’l-Tis’a dealt with this subject. The
Ottoman ‘ulema* and sevhs as well discussed this subject in the
sixteenth century. Kemal Pasazade (d. 940/1534), for example,
wrote a risale in which he attempted to prove the faith of the,.
Prophet’s parents. In the eighteenth century Miistaklmzade
Suleyman Sa'deddln
defended the view that the parents of the
729
Prophet died as Muslims.
I have not come across this subject in the writings of the
KadTzadelis. M. N'azmT Efendi (d. 1112/1700), who wrote the
biographies and legends of the galvetl sevhs in the seventeenth
century, touches upon this controversial issue, stating that in
Ka^xzade’s view, the Prophet’s parents died as infidels.
728
Siiyuti’s six short works on the faith of the Prophet’s
parents are printed in his Mecmu‘atu *1-Mesa’ili’1-Tis *a .
(Haidarabad, 1316-17/1898-1900 and 1334/1915). For Suyutl and
Razf see notes 262 and 302-
729
Kemal Pasazade, FI Hakk Ebevevni*n-Mebi (Istanbul:
ikdam Matbaasi, 1316/1898-99); Miistaklmzade, Risale fT Ti»5n-i
Ebevevni’r-Resulullah. Suleymaniye L., MS. Fatih 5451/1.
290
"According to a majority of the *ulema*.** says Nazmi- Efendi,
"those who blame the Proohet’s parents with infidelity deserve to

730
be killed.”
'Abdiilahad Nurl Efendi expresses his view in a separate
risale. In the first bab. the author refers to $ur’anic verses
and traditions of the Prophet which are interpreted to verify
that theProphet’s parents are in salvation as members of the

731
millet-i Hanefive. The second bab concerns the views of those
who claim that the parents of the Prophet died as unbelievers. •'
The third bab indicates the transmission of the light of
prophethood through pure generations. The conclusion gives the

genealogy of the Prophet.
'Abdiilahad N’url Efendi first quotes the names of the
Prophet’s companions, the imams and the expounders of Islamic
laws who put forth evidence in order to prove that the Prophet’s
parents died as believers. Among them were 'All b. Ebu TSlib,
Ibn 'Abbas, Enes b. Malik, Ibn Mes'ud, 'Aise, Fatime, Ebu Nu'aym,
730
M. Na?ml Efendi, Hedive. fols. 86b-87a. Besides
A. Nurl Efendi’s Te’dib; another work on this subject is guseyin
Husnu el-Fusu§T’s Redd-i Asarii*l-Miitemerridin. Suleymaniye L., MS.
Haci Mahmud Efendi 4411. This work, which was probably written
in the eighteenth century, includes sections of 'Abdulahad
Efendi’s Te’dTb and Mustafclmzade’s risale entitled Validevn-i
KerTmevn.
731
HanTf: this term is used in the Qur’an ia the
meaning of "a pre-Islamic no^Jewish and non-Christian
monotheist". Katib Qelebi, Balance. 122. Those who belong to
the millet-i Hanefive follow the religion of Abraham. K5tib
Qelebi, Balance. 110-123.
291
_ 732
Ca'fer Sadik, Fahreddln er-Razx and MuhyYddln en-NevevY.
According to some of these people,the Prophet’s parents died as
members of the millet-i Hanefive. According to others among
them, their faith was restored after death. In both cases, they
733
are in salvation.
'Abdiilahad Efendi states that Imam SuyiltY wrote six books
where he affirmed the faith of the Prophet’s parents. He then
quotes the Kur’anic verses "Abraham and Ishmael built the House
and dedicated it, saying: Accept this from us, Lord" (2:127);
"Make us submissive to You; make of our descendants a nation that
will submit to You" (2:128) and "Send forth to them an apostle of
their own who shall declare to them Your revelations and instruct
them in the Scriptures and in wisdom and purify them of sin"
(2:129). According to the unanimous view of such commentators as

/
BeyzavY, Ebussu'ud, ZemahserY and•Fahreddln er-RazY, the Prophet

734
who came from the progeny of Abraham was Muhammed.
'All b. Ebu Ifalib (d. 41/661), the Prophet’s cousin

and the last one of the four Righteous Caliphs; 'Abdullah b.
'Abbas (d. 68/687-88), the cousin of the Prophet who narrated
many traditions; Enes b. Malik (d. 91/709), one of the notables
of the Ensar. those inhabitants of the city of Medina who invited
the Prophet and his followers to their city; 'Abdullah b. Mes'ud
(d. 32/652-53),_one of the six people who were the first to
accept Islam; 'Aise (d. 58/678), the daughter of the first
Caliph Ebu Bekir (a. 13/634) and the Prophet’s wife; Fatime
(d. 12/633?),the Prophet’s daughter. Her mother is HatYce
(d. 619), the first wife of Muhammed. For Ebu Nu'aym see note
580. Ca'fer §adilj (d. 143/765), the 6 th of the 12 Si'T jmSns:
for Fahreddln er-RazY and MuhyYddYn en-NevevT see notes 302
and 5 70.
733
A.NurY, Te’dib. fol. 3a.
734
Ibid., fol. 4a; for' BeyzavY, ZemahserY and
Faljreddln er-RazY see notes 140, 164 and 302; Sey&iilislam
Ebussu'ud Efendi (d. 982/1574) wrote an Arabic commentary on
the Qur’an entitled irsadil’1-'Akli’s-Sellm ila Mezava’l-
Kur’ani’l-'AzYm. dedicating it to Suleyman the Magnificent.
292
In the first bab of his work, 'Abdiilahad Efendi also quotes
the verse "Lord, make me and my descendants steadfast in prayer"
(14:40). Ibn Cureyc (d. 150/767), in his commentary on this
verse, stated that the descendants of Abraham were always
preoccupied with acts of worship. Likewise, commentators
interpreted the verse "Put your trust in the Mighty One, the
Merciful, who observes you when you stand upright and when you
walk among the worshippers" (26:219) by saying that the Prophet
descended from the generation of monotheists. In this verse, the

i
word "worshippers” implies the ancestors of the Prophet from Adam

_ .. 735
ana Eve to his parents.
'Abdiilahad Efendi then quotes some traditions of the
Prophet on this subject. In a tradition recorded by BeyhakI and
related by Enes, the Prophet said: "God transmitted me from a
pure progeny to a pure womb.” FaijreddTn er-RazI quoted this
tradition in his work Tefslr-i Keblr and reached the conclusion
that neither* the mother nor the father of the Prophet can be
736
blamed with sirk or kufr.
In a tradition recorded by TeberanT in Avset and by Ebu
N'u'aym, the Prophet said: "I was born as a result of Islamic
marriage throughout the ancestors on my father’s side which goes

737
back to Adam." This tradition is reported by 'AIT and Hisam.
735
'A. NurT, Te’dTb. fol. 6 a.
736
Ibid., fol. 7a.
737
Ibid., fol. 7a.
293
In the second chapter of his work, A. Nurf Efendi refutes
the views of those who claim that the Prophet’s parents died as
unbelievers. The supporters of this view mainly use two
traditions as evidence. The first one is quoted by Muslim and
reported by Enes b. Malik: "One day, a bedouin asked the
Prophet: '0 Prophet! Where is my father’? The Prophet said:
'Your father is in fire.’ The man was just about to go away when
738
the Prophet said: 'My father and your father are in fire.’
Thesecond tradition quoted by Muslim is also in the,-

739
Siinen-i erba'a. Ebu Hureyre reports this tradition:
The Prophet visited his mother’s tomb and cried

in a manner which made people in his company shed
tears. Upon this, the Prophet said: 'I asked God
to give me permission in order to plead His
forgiveness for m y mother. It was not granted to
me. I then asked permission to visit her tomb and
this time permission was granted. You, too, visit
tombs for this act reminds you of death. 1 740
'Abdiilahad Efendi states that in neither of the
aforementioned traditions is there any sign* indicating the
infidelity of the Prophet’s parents.A deceased person may be in
fire because of a sin other than infidelity. Moreover, the
author notes that these two traditions are reported by a single
person (haber-i vahid1 and are therefore weak. In contrast to
738
Ibid.. fol. 12b.
739
Sunen-i erba'a are the f our books where the
following scholars compiled traditions: Ebu Davud Suleyman
b. el-Es'as es-Sicistanl (d. 275/888); Ebu 'Isa Muhammed b.
'Isa et-TirmiÎ (d. 279/892); Ebu 'Abdiirraljman Ahmed b. Su'ayb
en-Nese’I (a. 304/915); Ebu 'Abdullah b. Mace (d. 273/886).
740
A. N'url, Te’dTb. fol. 13a.
294
the reliable traditions (haber-i mutevatir-i meshure), they do
13 741
not indicate an absolute judgment.
'Abdiilahad Efendi than refers to a tradition reported by
'Ai?e, where the Prophet pleaded God so that He resurrect his
parents. God accepted the Prophet’s entreaty and honored his
parents with the faith of Islam. In this way, they died as
Muslims. Authorities such as Kurûbl state that this tradition
was reported during the time when the Prophet went on the last
pilgrimage before his death, known as the pilgrimage of farewell;

742
(veda hacci). It therefore cancels the previous tradition in
which the Prophet was refused permission to plead God’s Dardon

743
for his mother. There is a further argument made by
'Abdiilahad Efendi that people who have not received an invitation
to religion cannot be held responsible for belief or disbelief.
Such is the view of the Es'arxs according to whom hearing the
message of invitation is essential in matters of belief. Imam
GazalX and Ibnu’l CevzT share this view as well. 'Abdiilahad
Efendi refers to SiiyutX’s views in his refutation of those who

144
consider the Prophet’s parents infidels.
'Abdiilahad Efendi then turns to another basic question. It
is generally known that in his work Ftkh-i Ekber Imam Ebu HanXfe
(d. 150/769) wrote that the parents of the Prophet died as
741
Ibid., fol. 13b. "
742
For Kurtubl see note 474.
743
A. NurX, Te'dXb. fol. 15a.
744
Ibid., fol. 16b.
295
infidels. According to 'Abdulahad Efendi, who bases his
judgement on the views of scholars such as Zemah?eri and
Hatlbzade, the author of this work was not Imam-i A'iam Ebu
745
Hanlfe. He was either Ebu Hanlfe Mehmed b. Yusuf el-Buljari or
Ebu hanlfe Nu'man b. "Mehmed el-Misri. Even if one accepted that
Imam-i A'zam wrote the above-mentioned work and asserted the
infidelity of the Prophet’s parents, it would only mean kufr-i
hukmi (presumptive unbelief), not kufr-i hakikf (real
unbelief). The reason is that this subject does not depend on
interpretation (ictihad). Matters of belief or unbelief can only
be proven by Kur’anic verses and traditions of the Prophet. In
this matter, however, there is no such definite scriptural

746
evidence.
Under these conditions, 'Abdiilahad Efendi reaches the
conclusion that the Prophet’s parents died eitherin the period
when the messageof Islam did not reach them, i.e. the period of
fetret. or as
followers of Abraham. In either case, their
747
salvation is definite.
On the faith of the Prophet’s parents, Katib Oelebi says
the following:
745
For ZemaijserT see note 164; Muhyiddin Muhammed b.
ibrahTm Hatibzade (d. 900/1495): an Ottoman medrese teacher.
746 *
A. NurX, Te’dlb. fols. 17a-18a.
747 "
'Abdiilahad Efendi states that $eyh Muhyiddin Ibn
'Arab! in Futuhatu’1-Mekkive and Taskdpriiluzade in
Miftahii*s-Sa’ade mention two periods of fetret: 1. the period
between Idris and Noah, 2. the period between Jesus and Muhammed.
A. Nuri, Te’dlb. fol. 18a.
296
| The learned few, who know the origin of the
i conflict and are capable of arriving at the truth,
I will know the answer for themselves, and will
j decide as they choose and as circumstances
■ require. The duty of the ordinary believers is to
[ refrain from idle talk and discussion of the
matter. They should think the best, and say 'It
is to be hoped that the Prophet’s parents were
believers’...They should -not be mannerless and
hurl imputations of infidelity. 743
748
297
The Controversy on Sevh Muhviddln Ibn *Arab!
I This particular dispute between the pi^TzSdelis and the

1
Sufis originated from different interpretations of §eyh Ibn
I “ 749
I 'Arabi’s views on vahdet-i vucud (the 'unity of being’}.
According to this theory, all created things in the universe are
parts of a congruent whole and reflections of God’s existence.
Those who perceived this unity in totality as formulated by Ibn

750
'Arabl, were called Vucudls■ In their view, the real and only
/
performer of all actions is God. Man is like a mirror in which
the acts of Godare reflected;as stated in the Kur’anic verse
"It was not you, but Allah, who slew them. It was not you who
smote them: Allah smote them so that He might richly reward the
751
faithful" (8:17).
According to !£atib Celebi, after the death of Seyh Ibn
'Arabl, some scholars who followed he method of purification and
many who followed that of speculation, criticized Ibn 'Arab!
because of his views concerning the vahdet-i vucud. "Some
fanatics of this sort went so far as to distort his appellation

752
cf 'First Sheyfch’ into 'Worst Sheykh’". In the sixteenth
749
For §eyh Muhviddln Ibn 'Arabi’s life and works see
iA, 1971 ed., s.v. "Muhyl-d-DIn *Arabx," by Ahmed Ates.
750
Hodgson, The Venture of Islam. 2:462-465.
751 "
Huseyin Danis, "Tasawuf ve Onun Iran Edebiyatma
Te’slri,” chap. in TafITm-i Lisgn-i FarsT (Istanbul: Matbaa-i
Amire, 1332/1913-14), 8 8 .
752
Katib Celebi. Balance. 81.
298
century, the Ottoman scholar Ibrahim el-^Jalebl (d. 956/1549)
753
wrote a risgle where he severely criticized Ibn 'Arab!.
'Abdiilmecid SivSsI translated a risale of §ey{j Ibn 'Arabl,

754
revering him as Sevh-i Ekber (the greatest Sufi §eyh). The
HalvetI §eyh M. NazmI Efendi too uses this respectful apellation

755
for him. §eyh Niyazl-i Misrl’s admiration for Ibn 'Arabr
756
becomes clear from some of his poems. However, there is no
extant work by the Halvetl Sufis dealing directly with this
particular subject.
Among the KacJIzadelis, we have the views of Kaglzade on
§eyh Ibn 'Arabl. In his irsadu’1-'Ukul. Kaglzade Mefrmed Efendi
criticizes the theory of vahdet-i vucud without mentioning the
name of Ibn 'Arabl at all. Let us now summarize his argument
briefly: ga^Tzade states that according to the mystics, the
absolute being has come into existence in every object iesva).
Since objects in the universe do not have separate beings of

I
their own, concepts such as canonically lawful and unlawful acts
(helal and haram), pain, reckoning and punishment by God are all
753
ibrahlm el-Halebl, Ni'metu'z-Zeri'a fT
Nusreti’s-Serl'a. Suleymaniye L., MS. Fatih 2280.
754
A. SivasI, Tercume-i Risale-i Sevh-i Ekber.
Suleymjiniye L., MS. Fatih 5385/7, fols. 129a-131b. SivasI
Efendi does not mention the title of $eyh jbn 'ArabT’s risale.
but we know from the translation that it mainly deals with
subjects such as the different stages through which a Sufi should
pass in order to reach God, the effects of zikr on the soul, etc.
755
M. NazmI, Hedive, fol. 61a.
756
Golpmarli, "Niyazi-i Misri," 198.
29a
I imagination. The Propagators of this view put forth rational
I
; ('akll) and traditional (nakll) evidence in order to prove their
i point. For example, as a nakli proof,

they refer to the verse
757
"He isW ith you wherever you are” (57:4). Kadizade notes that
'togetherness with God’ is possible only by knowledge obtained
through inference or deduction (istidlal). Indeed, commentators
have agreed on this point. Moreover, God is only .with those who
believe and perform good deeds, and not with people like Pharaoh.
According to the mystics, God is the creator and the'
created, the worshipper and the worshipped, the forgiving and the
forgiven. They claim to arrive at these thoughts through kesf.
In Kadizade’s view, such ideas run counter to the serl'at and to
the essence of religion conveyed by the Prophet and expressed in
the Book. God is exempt from such interpretations. The words
of the Sufis therefore amount to heresy. Kadizade then quotes
the verse ”A11 things shall perish except Himself" (28:88). An
object can be destroyed only after it has come into existence.
Therefore, this verse, too, stands as evidence for the reality of

758
objects•
Kadizade draws a parallel between the views of Christians
and the Sufis. When Christians saw the light of God shining in
Jesus Christ, they called him God. Likewise, the mystics believe
that the only being is God by seeing God’s essence (uluhiyet)
757
Kadizade, Irsad. fol. 161a.
758
300
| manifest in every object in the universe. One sees the
I
| reflection of a star in a mirror and tries to catch it. He is
deceived, however, for the star in the mirror is not real.
i
!
!
Kadizade notes that in mysticism, too, deception
possible unless the mystic follows the ethics of the Prophet

is often
and
) 759
the principles of the serât.
759
Ibid., fol. 162a.
301
Visiting Tombs
In the first days of Islam, the practice of visiting tombs

was forbidden. KStib Celebi states that the purpose of this
prohibition was mainly tr. prevent idolatry. When Islam became
firmly established, the Prophet permitted this practice again.
Some of the traditions related to this permission are the

750
following:
Muslim quotes a tradition in Sahlh reported by Bureyde Ibnf
Huseyb from the Prophet: "My disciples,

I had forbidden you to
761
visit tombs; henceforth you may visit them."
According to a tradition quoted by TirmizT, the Prophet
said: "My disciples,^ I had prohibited the visitation of tombs.
Permission has been granted, however, to your Prophet Muhammed in
order to visit the tomb of his mother.

You, too, visit tombs
762
for this visit reminds you of the hereafter." This tradition,
»
too, is reported by Bureyde Ibn Huseyb.
Before examining the views of the KladTzadelis and the Sufis
on visiting tombs, let us note the following account by Paul
Rycaut (d. 1700), the British diplomat of the seventeenth
century. He describes the Kadizadelis as a newly arisen sect

among the Turks, and continues:
760
KStib Celebi, 3alahce. 92.
761
Ibid., 92; ZebTdT, TecrTd. 4:371.
762
Zebldr, TecrTd. 4:371.
302
i
i
One of which is called Kadezadeli.
' ■ '
a sect
l sprung up in the time of Sultan Morat. whose chief
■ Propagator was one Burgali Effendi. who invented
[ many Ceremonies in praying for the Souls departed,
I at the burial of the dead. Those that are of this
! Sect cause their Imaum to cry loud in the ears of
| the inanimate body, to remember that God is one,
] and His Prophet one. . 763
The above description is a possibly false report on Kadlzadeli
beliefs related to death and burial.
In a separate risale devoted to this subject, Birgivi
Meljmed Efendi, the intellectual mentor of the Kadizadelis, makes

* * /
it clear that the purpose of visiting tombs should be solely
praying for the dead. Such practices as performing the ritual
worship (salat) on tombs, reciting the Kur’an during the visit,.
circumambulating or embracing the tomb,

expecting spiritual
764
assistance from the" dead are all forbidden. In his work
farxkat-i Muhammedive. Birgivi quotes a tradition recorded by
TirmizI and reported by Ebu Hureyre where the Prophet cursed

765
women
I
who visit tombs.
Kadizade Mehmed Efendi’s views on visiting tombs are
similar to Birgivi’s. In his work irsadu*1-*Ukul. gadlzade too,
quotes a tradition recorded by Ebu Davud and reported by Ibn
'Abbas in which the Prophet cursed women who visit tombs, perform
763
Rycaut, History. 243-244.
764
Birgivi, Reddii’1-Kabriye. Siileymaniye L. , MS. Esad
Efendi 3780, fols. 54b-55b.
765
Birgivi, Tarlkat, 462.
303
766
the ritual worship and light oil lamps on graves. Like
Birgivi, KSdlzSde enumerates the same impermissible acts
767
regarding the visit.
The Prophet would always pray saying: "0 Lord, do not turn
my tomb into an idol which people worship. Indeed, God's wrath
increases towards people who make the tombs of their prophets
places of worship."
According to Ka4Izade, the purpose of this
768
expression was to protect monotheism. As we have seen, when
the monotheistic belief was perceived to be firmly established
among Muslims, the Prophet permitted visiting tombs. He would
say the following salutation during the visit: "0 the deceased!
769
Greetings be upon you. We, too, shall meet you."
Kadizade also refers to some traditions which he considers

*
to be invented on the subject of visiting tombs. One of them
was: "Whenever you experience difficulty in a certain matter ask
assistance from the dead." In Kadlzade’s view, these words run
counter both to the Kur’an and to the traditions of the Prophet.
In the first sura of the Kur’Sn (the Exordium), God has ordered
766
KiaijTzade, irsad. fol. 173a. The two traditions
quoted by Birgivi and Kadizade where the Prophet cursed women who
visit tombs became null after the traditions came into effect
permitting the visitation of graves. Zebldl, Tecrld. 372-373.
767
Kadizade, irsad. fol. 173a.
768
Ibid., fol. 173a.
769
Ibid., fol. 174a.
304
j Muslins to ask His assistance only. ("You alone we worship, and
I You alone we pray for help.") Therefore, it is improper to ask

{ 770
i spiritual aid from the dead.
i
I
| (JstuvanY Efendi treats the practice of visiting tombs in
that section of his risale where he discusses the types of sirk.
According to him, asking intercession from the dead belongs to
the third kind of sirk called sirk-i takrlbl. Among the acts of
blasphemy (kufiir) which are under this category are to make vows
and sacrifices for stones, trees and tombs. According to'
Usttivanl Efendi, those who commit these acts remain in Hell

771
forever.
'Abdiilmecld SivasI Efendi views the practice of visiting
tombs in a positive way. According to him, the prayers, alms and
sacrifices of visitors produce great benefit for the deceased.
If a righteous person visits the tomb of a sinner, his prayers
and alms help the dead person to be pardoned by God. In turn,
x'isiting the tomb of a pious person provides prosperity (fevz)
and spiritual enlightenment (nur) for the visitor. 'Abdulmecld
SivasI also mentions Kemal Pasazade’s (d. 940/1534) words which
indicate that great benefit ensues for those who visit the tombs
772
of saints.
770
Ibid., fol. 175b.
771
Ustiivanx, Feva *id .Fera ’id. fols. 85a-85b.
772
SivasI, Purer, fol. 81a.
305
SivasI Efendi states that Ibn Teymiye deviated from God’s
path when, following his own fancies, he opposed the practice of
visiting tombs. Upon this act, the ’ulema* of the time
imprisoned him and issued a fetva for his execution. In the end,
Ibn Teymiye was released when he repented and confessed his

773
ignorance.
'Abdulmecxd SivasI also refers to the views of Muhyiddln
Ibn 'Arab! on this subject. According to Ibn 'Arabx, as a gift
of God, some people have the power of enlightening and guiding'
others. Such men have reached a perpetual union with God
(beka’billah) by annihilating their soul in the eternal being.
SivasI Efendi expands Ibn ’Arabl’s words by saying that he who
has not benefited from this spiritual enlightenment cannot
understand the §ufx states. He then quotes the verse "...Indeed,
the man from whom Allah withholds His light, shall find no light
at all" (24:40). According to SivasI Efendi, the visitor
benefits from this spiritual light which exists in the tombs of

774
saints (evliva’) and pious men (suleha*).
As we have seen, the principal difference between the
5a<jlzadelis and the Sufis on this subject is related to the
manner and the purpose of visiting tombs. While the Sufxs
773
Ibid., fol. 81b. This last bit of information
provided by SivasI Efendi doejs not conform to what we know about
Ibn Teymiye. See Laoust, Les Schismes dans I’Tslam. 271.
774
SivasI, P u r e r , fol. 82a.
306
consider asking spiritual assistance from the dead permissible,
according to the $a<3 Izadelis, the purpose of the visitor should
only be praying for the deceased. The £a4xzadelis also enumerate
a number of practices which they regard forbidden during the

visitation.
307
CONCLUSION
In this thesis, I have examined the fcatflzadeli movement as
a reform attempt of a specific nature in the Ottoman Empire. As i
we have seen in Part I, Chapter I, the Ottomans faced some i
substantial demographic, fiscal and military changes in the I
seventeenth century which justifies the word 'cris-is’. We have '
classified the Ottoman intellectuals who proposed solutions to
Ottoman 'decline’ in two groups: the kanun-minded reformists and/
the seri*at-minded reformists.
Ottoman historians of the post-Suleimanic age emphasized
the importance of kanun in political rule and interpreted Ottoman
decline as a result of the deviation from the "ancient dynastic
law (kanun- 1 kadlm)". Historians such as Gelibolulu Mustafa 'Air
fd. 1008/1599-1600) and Selanikl td. 1009/1600?) in the sixteenth
century have been regarded as the forerunners of the kanun-minded
reformists in the seventeenth century such as Koci Bey (fl.
second quarter of the seventeenth century] and Katib Celebi (d.
1067/1657). In their view, the remedy for Ottoman decline was
the enforcement of the kanun which could be in harmony with the

775
_— fd
a c t 1 t .
In contrast to the above-mentioned historians, the
Kadlzadelis as seri'at-minded reformists, recognized the serT'at
as the one and only basis of Ottoman reform, de-emphasizing the
I io
For a more detailed discussion of this subject see
Kafadar, "Economic Imagination" and Fleischer, Mustafa *Alf.
308
importance of the kanun and the 'orf. They also underlined the
duty of the ruler to fulfill the religious injunction of el-
emr bi’1 -ma’ruf ve,l-nehytani*l-munker as it becomes clear from
Kadizade’s work T5cu ’r-Resa*i1 which is an expanded translation
of Ibn Teymiye’s Siyasetu’s-Ser1 Ire. . Indeed, the KadlzSdelis as
selefis owe their intellectual heritage to such earlier selefIs
as Ibn Teymiye (d. 728/1328) and his student Ibn KayyTmu’l-
Cevzlye (d. 751/1350). Our examination of the controversial
issues between the $a<jlzadelis an<} the Halvetl Sufi Seyhs sheds
more light into the selefI thinking of the Kadlzadelis. Their
thought was characterized by a literal understanding of the
Jjnr’an and traditions of the Prophet, a strict adherence to the
sunnet and a rejection of all practices which emerged after the
Prophet’s time as bid’ats. As it becomes

from their clear
/
writings, according to the Kadlzadelis, this attitude was the one
and only touchstone for the right conduct for Muslims..
In this thesis, I have examined the KadTzadeli movement in
three stages. During the first stage (ca. 1043/1633-1049/1639),
intellectual disputes took place between the two leaders,
Kadizade Mehmed Efendi and SivasI Efendi. Usually, Murad IV and
some high officials of state were present at these discussions.

In the second stage (1060-61/1650-1072/1661) under tis+uvanl’s
leadership, the Kadlzadelis began their aggressive acts such as
assaults on the lodges of dervishes. The Sufis, under their
leader 'Abdiilahiad Hurl Efendi, responded to such violent acts
peacefully and on the intellectual level. The attempt by Kurd

Mehmed, a sympathizer of the Halvetl §ufls, to refute Tar~1p»t--i
309
Muhammedive is an example of such efforts. Despite the
suppression of the movement in 1066/1656, the Kadlzadelis grew
powerful again under their leader VanI Efendi during the third
stage of the movement (ca. 1069/1659-1105/1694). Some §ufl
practices such as sema1 and zikr were officially forbidden in
this period which also witnessed the aggressive acts of the
Kadlzadelis in 1103/1692 in Bursa.
On the whole, the Kadlzadelis failed to find a remedy for
the social, moral and political decline in the Ottoman Empire.'
True, kadizade was influential on Murad IV*s prohibition of
tobacco-smoking and the closing down of the coffee-houses.
Likewise, Van! was the prominent figure behind the interdiction
of sema' and devran. wine-drinking and visiting tombs.
Nonetheless, these strict measures were not very effective in the
long run. There were a number of reasons behind the Kadlzadeli
failure. First of all, the kadlzadelis did not organize their
ideas into !a systematic program of reform. Indeed, the idea of
Islamic reform is only implicit in their works. Secondly, and
perhaps more importantly, during the second and third stages of
the movement, the Kadlzadelis attempted to ‘enjoin good and
forbid evil* by force, threatening public order seriously. The
Ottoman rulers did not tolerate such sources of social disorder
which would upset the stability of the state. Thirdly, the
Kadlzadelis had quite powerful adversaries. Both Murad IV
(1032/1623-1049/1640) and his mother Kosem Sultan (d. 1061/1651)
310
favored the Halvetl Sufis who belonged to the "most 'public ’of
"•*776
orders” at the time. Needless to say, Murad IV tactfully
managed to bestow his favor upon both Kadizade and SivasI.
Nevertheless, as Zilfi mentions, the K5<JTzadeli leaders still had
to compete with the Halvetl Sufi .sevhs in the appointments to the

777
posts of Friday preachers.
A contemporary religious movement in Iran displays striking
affinities to the Kadlzadeli movement. In his study on the
establishment of Twelver S & s m as the state religion in Iran,''
Said Arjomand analyzes the controversy between two groups of
’ulema’: the Ahbarls were "an ‘estate’ of clerical notables” who
served in the capacity of judges and clerical administrators.
They adhered to the ahbar transmitted by the imams. advocating a
return to the traditionalism in Qum in the ninth century and
firmly opposing ictihad and taklld. The Usulls were "a group of
religious professionals consisting of the Shi’ite doctors." This
group was also known as the "literalist” dr "official" ’u l e m a ’

778
since they accepted the Kur’an and the traditions literally.
In the seventeenth century, there was a revival of *irfan
(gnostic philosophy) and high §uflsm. The Ahbarls, following
this trend, reconciled their traditionalism with ’irfan and the
"hermeneutic interpretation" of the Kur’an and traditions of the
Prophet. MeclisT the Elder (d. 1070/1659-60), a well-known
776
Zilfi. "Revivalism," 268.
777
Ibid., 267-268.
778
Arjomand, Shadow of Cod. 122-123, 145.
311
779
muctehid. attempted- to harmonize Si'Tsm and Sufism. His son
Muljammed Bekir MeclisI (d. 1111/1699) adopted the traditionalist-
conservative view which was diametrically opposed to his father’s
outlook. He then separated the two aspects of the clerical
notables’ viewpoint: he accepted Ahbarl Traditionalism and its
popular appeal to the masses,severely, criticising gnostic
philosophy and high Sufism. With the appointment of MeclisI as
the seyhulislam of Isfahan in 1098/1687 and as the first
mu11abasi in this new office in 1124/1712, the conservative'
religious professionals were intellectually solidified. Besides
MeciisI, some other scholars, too, assumed a negative attitude
towards the Sufis. el-Hurr el-Amill (d. 1120/1708-9), the
seyhGlislam of Mashhad, for example, came up with 1000 traditions

780
against the Sufis. This anti-Sufi approach is similar to that
of the Kadlzadelis.
In the end, the Usulls won in Iran whereas the kadlzadelis
lost in the Ottoman Empire. According to Arjomand, one of the
reasons for the success of the Usulls was their emphasis and
codification of the proper observation of certain religious
practices. These were, for example, the specification of the
times and occasions for particular prayers, the description of
the proper invocations (ezkar) at the end of the prayers five
times a day, the number of kur’anic verses which should be

781
repeated during the prayer. In their risales. the
779
Ibid., 145-149.
780
Ibid., 152-153.
781
Ibid., 156-158.
312
5a<jlzadelis, too, delineated the correct perfoi-uance of similar
782
rituals. Perhaps a more important reason for the success of
the U§ulls in Iran came from the particular nature of §i*I
‘ulema*. The religious professionals in Iran had charismatic
qualities and the power to j*°rk. miraculous acts such as
du'a nivisl (charm writing), istihare (consulting the Kur’an to
decide whether or not to engage in a specific actic.n) and sefa’at
(intercession in the hereafter). By assuming such functions of
the ‘ulema*, the dogmatic jurists won the popularity of ordinary

783
people.
The failure of the Kadlzadeli movement was only a short
term one since the influence of the movement continued in the
long run. One important area in which the 5a<$izadeli influence
can be detected is that of the secular law or the kanun. In U.
Hevd’s view, already in the late sixteenth century, many of the
'ulema* objected to the concept of kanun. There were some basic
reasons behind !this objection. First of all, the kanun reflected
the despotic power of the ruler as opposed to the doings and
sayings of the Prophet, the siinnet. Secondly, being a secular
law in a written and codified form, men of religion regarded it
often as a perilous innovation. In the beginning of the
eighteenth century, the Ottoman secular law diminished in
782
See, for example, 5adlza.de, I man ve Namaz Risalesi.
fols. 72b-75a.
783 Arjomand, Shadow of God. 138. ISA-156.
313
importance while the seriVat became increasingly predominant.
i
The JJatJTzadeli opposition to *kanun * as a basis of reform must
have been effective in this development.
Most probably, reform attempts based on the seri1at
continued in the Ottoman Empire after the disappearance of the:
Kadlzadelis. An examination of the copies of their works in the;
eighteenth century would provide a clue in this respect.
Examination of similar movements associated with religion
such as the popular riots in Baghdad in the tenth century
inspired by the works of the traditionist and jurisconsult
Barbaharl, and the Usull movement in Iran enables us to see the
Kadlzadeli movement inhistorical perspective as yet another

785
example of such movements. We can understand the particular
characteristics of the Kadlzadeli movement which differentiate it
from others by studying it within the Ottoman context. This is
; primarily what I have aimed, to do in this thesis.
784
Uriel Heya, Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law, ed.
V. L. Menage (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1973), 203.
785 For a more detailed description of these riots in

Baghdad see p.45.
314
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
I• Manuscripts and Unpublished Works
'AbdT Pa$a, 'Abdurrahman. Yekavi'naae-i Sultan Mehmed Rabi'

Siileymaniye L., MS. M. Hafid Efendi 250.
'Abduiahad NurT b. Mu§hafa §afayi. Risale-i Serna'ive-i

Nurive. Siileymaniye L., MS. Esad Efendi 1434/4.
_______ • Te’dlbu’l-Mutemerridln. Suleymaniye L., MS. Esad
Efendi 3S03; MS. Fatih 5293/10.
Ayvansarayi, Huseyin. Tercume-i Mesavih. Suleymaniye L.,

MS. Esad Efendi 1375.
Behcetl Ibrahim. Tarlh-i Siilale-i Konrulii. Koprulii L. ,

II.Kisim. MS. 212T
BirgivI, Mehmed b. PIr 'All. el-Ecvibatu*1-Hasime li

'Uruki *1-Sibhati *1-K5sime. Siileymaniye L.t MS. Esad
Efendi 615.
_______ . Reddii*1-Kabrive. Siileymaniye L., MS. Esad Efendi
3780.
/
_______ • Risale-i BirgivI. Suleymaniye L., MS. Haci Besir
Afa 397/1.
_______ • es-Sevfii’s-Sarim f7 'Adem-i Cevaz-i Vakfi'1-Menkul

ve’d-Derahim. Suleymaniye L., MS. Esad Efendi 1581.
»
_______ . Ccret ile Kur'an Olcutmak Ca* iz Olmacigma Da'ir
Risale. Suleymaniye L., MS. Haci Be?ir Aga 672.
Evliya’ Celebi b. DervI? Mehmed Zilll. Evliva Chelebi in

Bitlis. Edited by Robert Dankoff. To be published by
E. J. Brill.
Fir'avunun frnanma Da'ir Risale Serhi. Suleymaniye L., MS.

294/4.
ei-Fu§u§r, huseyin Hiisnii. Redd-i Asaru* 1-Mutemerridin.

Suleymaniye L., MS. Haci Mahmud Efendi 4411.
el-Halebl, ibrahla. Mi'metu’z-Zerl'a fl Nusreti's-Serl'a.

Suleymaniye L. , MS. "Fatih 2280.
Ibn KemSl, Semseddln Ahmed (Kemal Pasazade). Fetava.

Suleymaniye L., MS. Ayasofya K 2705.
_______ . Fetava-i Raks. Siileymaniye L., MS. Esad Efendi

696/3.
315
_______ . Risale f1 Tahklki*r-Rafcs. Suleymaniye L., MS.
Murad Buhari 323.
Isma'll Niyazx. Serh-i Nivazx ‘ala Serh-i BirgivT

li’1-Konevx. Suleymaniye L., MS. DugSmlu Baba 134.
Jjadx'asker Salim Efendi. Tezkire. Suleymaniye L., MS. Lala

Ismail 317.
Kadizade Mehmed b. DotanI Mustafa. 'ilmihal Risalesi.

Suleymaniye L., MS. HacxBesir Afa 397/3.
_______ . Iman ve Namaz Risalesi. Siileymaniye L-, MS.

Ayasofya K 4871.
_______ • irsadii* 1-'Ukiili *1-Miistakxme ile *1-Usuli *1-Kavxme bi

ibtali’1-Bid *ati *s-Saklme. Suleymaniye L., MS. Fatih
5407/2.
_______ • Kami'atii’1-Bid'at N'asiratii1 s-Siinnet Damigatu,l-

Miibteda'. Suleymaniye L., MS. Birinci Serez 3876.
_______ • Risale-i Kadizade. Topkapx Palace L., MS. E.H.

1739/5.
_______ . Risale-i Kadizade Berave Devran. Topkapx Palace

L., MS. E.H. 1739/3; Suleymaniye L., MS.
Antalva-Tekelioflu 799.
_______ • Tacii ’r-Resa*il ve Minhacu*1-Vesa*il. Suleymaniye

L., MS. Hacx Mahmud Efendi 1926.
KonevI, 'All Saarl. Serh-i BirgivI li’1-Konevi. Suleymaniye

L., MS. Mihri?ah Sultan 243. j
Kopriiliizade, Mu'man b. Mu$âfi. el-'Adi fx Hali'l-Hadir.

Koprulii L., III.'Exsxm. MS. 148. ° '
Lamekanx, Hiiseyin Efendi. Belaradi Sevh Miinxri Efendi*nin

Istanbul Seynierine Karsi i'tirazlarxna Lamekanx Husevin
Efendinin Cevaplarx. Topkapx Palace L., MS. 1783/5.
Mefrmed Na^mT, Hedivetii’1-ihvan. Siileymaniye L., MS. Hacx

Mahmud Efendi 2413.
Mx§rx, Niyazx b. 'All. 'Akxdetu*1-Misr~. Siileymaniye L.,

MS. Pertev Pasa 620/12.
_______ • "Allahu Murii’s-Semavat ve’l-'Arz” Avetinin Tefsxri.

Istanbul University L., MS. TY 6374/4.
_______ • Meva’idii’l-'irfan ve 'Ava* idu' 1-ihsan. Siileymaniye

L., MS. Resid Efendi 438/9.
316
_______ • Risale-i Hizriye-i Cedlde. Suleymaniye L.T MS.
Pertev Pasa-620/11.
_______ • Risale-i Hizriye-i Kadime. Siileymaniye L., MS.

Pertev Pa?a 620/10.
_______ . Turuk-i tAlivenin Zifcir ve Avlnin Men* Risalesi.

Istanbul University L., MS. TY 6374/16.
Muneccimbasi Ahmed. Cami'u’d-Duvel. Bayezid L., MS. Bayezid j

5020.. !
MiistakTmzade, Suleyman Sa'deddln. Risale ft Troan-i j.

Ebevevni’r-Resulullah. Siileymaniye L., MS*. Fatih
5451/1.
Risale-i Duhanive. Siileymaniye L., MS. Erzincan 144/3.
Sari Mehmed Pa§a. Ziibde-i Vekavi fat. Siileymaniye L., MS.

Esad Efendi 2382.
Sivasi, 'Abdulmecid b. §eyh Muharrem. Biza 'atii’1-Varizin.

Suleymaniye L., MS. Kilig Ali Pasa 1032/2.
_______ • Divan- 1 ilahiyat. Siileymaniye L., MS. Lala ismail

453/1.
■ Diirerii *1- *Aka’id. Suleymaniye L. , MS. Mihrisah

Sultan 300/1.
_______ • Diirerii* 1-'Aka* id ve Gurer Kull Sa’ik ve Ka’id.

Suleymaniye L., MS. Laleli 2408/1.
_______ • Leta’ifu*1-Ezhar ve Leza*izu’1-Esmar. Suleymaniye

L., MS. Mihrisah Sultan 255.
_______ • Mi fyaru*t-TarTk. Siileymaniye 1., MS. Mihrisah

Sultan 300/3.
_______ • Mes5^-**5 ’ Suleymaniye L., MS. Laleli

1613 m.
_______ • Terciime-i Risale-i Sevh-i Ekber. Suleymaniye L.,

MS. Fatih 5385/7.
Siinbiil Sinan Efendi. Risaletu*t-Tahklkive. Suleymaniye L.,

MS. Esad Efendi 1761.
Seyhl, Mehmed. Vekavi *ii*-l-FuzaIa. Suleymaniye L. , MS.

Hamidiye 939.
'Ussaklzade, ibrahlm HasTb. Zevlu’s-Sakavik. Suleymaniye

L., MS. Celebi Abdullah 260.
317
ilsîivani Meijmed b. Ahmed. ’Aka* id ve ’tbadata id .Risale.
Suleymaniye"L., MS. Yazma Bagislar 574.
_______ . Fev5‘idu’l-A'mair ve Fera* idu’l-Le’ali.

Suleymaniye L., MS. M. Arif-M.Murad 13.
_______ • *ilmihal. Suleymaniye L., MS. Yazma Bagislar 43.
Kitab-i Feva’id-i Keblr.. Suleymaniye L., MS. Fatih

2770.
_______ • Risaletu *1-Mes *ele. Suleymaniye L., MS. Yazma

Bagislar 363/1.
_______ • Ustiivani RisSlesi. Suleymaniye L., MS. Diifiimlii

Baba 144/3.
Van! Meijmed b. Seyh Bistam. Muhvi1 s-Sunnet. MiimTt.u *1-Bid *at. '
Suleymaniye L., MS. Kasidecizade 663/1; Istanbul
University L., MS. T 6273.
_______ • Munse’at. Suleymaniye L., MS. Ayasofya K 4308.
_______ • Risale-i Van!. Suleymaniye L., MS. Esad Efendi

3780/8.
_______ - TasavvufT Bid'atlerden Sakmmaya -Da'ir Risale.

Suleymaniye L., MS. Haci Besir Afa 406/3.
Veclhl Hasan Efendi. Tarlh-i VecFhr. Siileymaniye L. , MS.

Haaidiye 917. 01
Zekeriyazade, Yahya. Fetava. Suleymaniye L., MS. izmir 248.

I
_______ • Mecmu'a-i Fetava. Siileymaniye L., MS. Haci Besir
Afa 332.
Zenbllli, ’All CemalT. Deveran-i Sufivenin Cevazina Da’ir

Risale. Suleymaniye L., MS. M.Arif-M.Murad 221/2.
318
2. Printed Works
'Abdiilahad Nuri b. Muftafa Safayl. FI-rtakki *d-Deverani ’s-

Suflvef n.p., n.d.
'Ata’T, Nev’izade. Hada*iku’l-Haka’ik fx TgkmTleti’s-Safcavik.

Istanbul, 1268/1851-52.
Birgivi, Mehmed b. PTr 'AIT. Tarikat-i Muhammad-iwe
Terciimesi. 3d ed. Translated by Celal Yxldirim.
Istanbul: Demir Kitabevi, 1981.
Corel, John. "Extracts from the Diaries of Dr. John Covel:

1670-1679." In Early Voyages and Travels 'in the Levant.
Edited by J. Theodore Bent, no. 87. London: Hakluyt
Society, 1893.
D’Arvieux, Louis Laurent. Memoires du Chevalier d ’Arvieux. /

6 vols. Paris: C. J. B. Delespine, 1735.
HacT Hallfe, Mustafa b. 'Abdullah (Katib Celebi). Fezieke.

2 vols. Istanbul, 1^87/1870-71.
_______ • The Balance of Truth. Translated by Geoffrey

Lewis. London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1957.
_______ • Mizanu*1-Hakb fi ihtivari*1-Ahakk "En Dogruvu

Secmek icin Hak Terazisi." Edited by Orhan Saik Gokyay.
Istanbul, 1980.
Ibn Kemal, SemseddTn Ahmed (Kemal Pasazade). FT Hakk

Ebeveyni’n-N'ebl. Istanbul: ikdam Matbaasi,
1316/1898-99.
i
Karadelebizade, 'Abdulazlz. TarTh-i Ravzatii’1-Ebrar.
Buiak, 1248/1832-33. “
The Koran. Translated by N. J. Dawood. London: Penguin

Books, 1959.
Meijmed Ra$id. TarTh-i Rasid. 5 vols. Istanbul,

1282/1865-66.
MisrT, NiyazX b. 'All. irfan Sofralarx. Translated and

edited by Ahmed Ate?. Ankara: Emel Matbaasi, 1972.
Mustafa Na'Tma. TarTh-i N'a'Tma. 6 vols. Istanbul,
1280/1863-64~ °
Pecevi, ibrahTn. TarTh-i PecevT. 2 vols. Istanbul,

1283/1866-67. °
Rycaut, Paul. The History of the Present State of the

Ottoman Empire. 5th ed. London, 1682.
31 F
_______ . The History of the Turkish Empire from the_Year
1623 to thg' Year 1677. London, 1680.
Silafcdar Fxndilylili Mehmed Aga. Silahdar TarThi. 2 vols.

Istanbul, 1928.
SivSsI, 'Abdulmecid b. §ey£i Mufrarrem. Abdulmecid Sivasi

Divani. Edited by Recep Toparli. Sivas: Dilek
Matbaasi, 1984.
§ola)j:zade, Mehmed. Solakzade TarThi. Istanbul,

1297/1879-80.
Thevenot, Jean. L ’Empire du Grand Ture Vu oar un Su.iet de

Louis XIV: Jean Thevenot. Paris: Calmann-Levy, 1965.
320
SECONDARY SOURCES
Adxvar, Adrian. Osmanli Turklerinde ilia. 4th ed. Istanbul:

Remzi Kitabevi, 1982.
A^med Rif'at. Davhatu'1-Mesavih ma' Zevl. Istanbul: n.p.,

n.d.
Akdaf, Mustafa. Celali isvanlari (1550-1603). Ankara

Universitesi DTCF Y a y m i a n , no. 144. Ankara, 1963.
_______ . "Tiirkiye Tarihinde ictimai Buhranlar Serisinden:

Medreseli isyanlan." Iktisat Fakiiitesi Hecmuasi. 11
(1950): 361-387.
Alkia, Bahadir, Nazime Antel, Robert Avery, Janos Eckmann,

Sofi Huri, Fahir is, Mecdud Mansuroflu, and Andreas ,
Tietze, eds. Redhouse Yeni Turkce-ingilizce Sozluk.
2d ed. Istanbul: Redhouse Yavmevi, 1974.
Anhegger Robert. "Hezarfen Hiiseyin Efendi’nin Osmanli Devlet

Teskilatma Dair Miilahazalan." Turkivat Mecmuasi 10
(1953): 365-393.
Ankaravl, Riisuhl isma'Tl Efendi. Huccetu*s-Sema1. Bulak,

1256/1840-41.
Arjomand, Said Amir. The Shadow of G6 d and the Hidden Imam:

Religion. Political Order and Societal Change in Shi'ite
Iran From the Beginning to 1890. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1984.
Atsiz, N'ihal, comp. Istanbul Kutuphanelerine Gore Birgivi

Mehmed Efendi Biblivografvasi. Suleymaniye Kutuphanesi
Yayinlan, 1. Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basimevi, 1966.
cAyni, Mehmed All. Islam Tasawuf Tarihi. Edited by H. R.

Yananli. Istanbul: Akabe Yaymlari, 1985.
_______ • Turk Ahlakcilan. Istanbul: Marifet Basimevi,

1939.
Ayvansarayl, Hiiseyin. HadTkatii’1-Covami ♦- 2 vols. Istanbul:

Amire Basimevi, 1281/1864-65.
Barkan, Omer Liitfi. "Price Revolution of the Sixteenth

Century: A Turning Point in the Economic History of the
Near East.” International Journal of Middle East
Studies 6 (January 1S75): 8-15.
Cook, Michael A. -Population Pressure in Rural Anatolia:

1450-1600. London Oriental Series, vol. 27. London:
Oxford University Press, 1972.
321
Dani$, Hiiseyin. "Tasavvuf ve Onun Iran Edebiyatma Te?siri.
Chap. in Tairm-i Lisan-i Farsi, istanbul: Matbaa-i
Amire, 1332/1913-14.
Debbagoglu, Ahmet and ismail Eara, eds. Ansiklopedik Bfiviik

tslam llmihali. Istanbul: Dergah yayxnlari, 1979.
Diizdag, Ertugrul, ed. Sevhulislam Ebu*suud Efendi Fetvalan

IsiSmda 16.Asir Turk Havati. Istanbul: Endcrua
Kitabevi, 1972.
2
El . S.v. "Agha,” by H. Bowen.
2
El . S .v . "Ahl al-Hadfth." by J. Schacht.
2
El . S.v. "Ashab al-Ra’y," by J. Schacht. ,
2
El . S.v. "Bid'a," by J. Robson.
2
E l . S.v-. "BIrun,” by Bernard Lewis.
2
El . S.v. ’’Emin," by Bernard Lewis.
2
El . S.v. "Enderun," by V. J. Parry.
2
SI . S.v. "Evliya Celebi," by J. H. Mbrdtmann-(H.W.Duaa).
o ✓
El . S.v. "Husayn. Efendi, D.iind.ii Khodia." by C. Orhonlu.
2
El . S.v. "Ibn Taymiyya,” by Henri Laoust.
2
El • S.v. "Idjma'," by M. Bernand.
2 \
El . S.v. "Kahwa," by C. V. Arendonk.

2
El . S.v. "KS*im-Makam,” by E. Kuran.
2
El . S.v. "al-Khadir." by A. J. Wensinck.
2
II . S.v. "Khalwatiyya," by F. de Jong.
II . S.v. 'Al-Mahdi,” by W. Madelung.

2
El . S.v. "Sama'," by D. B. Macdonald.
2
El . S.v. "Vazld b. Muawiva,” by H. Lammens.
Eraydm, Selpuk. Tasavvuf ve Tarikatler. istanbul: Marifet

Yaymlari, 1984.
Faroqhi, Suraiya and Leila Erder. "Population Rise and Fall

in Anatolia: 1550-1620." Chap. in Peasants. Dervishes
and Traders in the Ottoman Empire. London, 1979;
reprint, London: Variorum Reprints, 1986.
322
Fleischer, Cornell H. Bureaucrat and Intellectual.injthe
Ottoman Suspire: The Historian Mustafa *511 (1541-1600).
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Galante, Abraham. Histoire des Juifs d ’Anatolie. Vol. 1,

Les Juifs d'izmir (Smvrne). Istanbul, 1937.
Golpxnarlx, Abdiilbaki. Mevlana’dan Sonra Mevlevilik. 2d ed.

istanbul: inkilap ve Aka,'1983.
_______ . "Niyazi-i MxsrI." Sarkivat Hecmuasx 7 (1972):

183-226.
Goniil, Behcet. "istanbul Kutuphanelerinde al-§aka’ik al-

Nu'maniya Terciime ve Zeyilleri." Turkivat Mecmuasi 8
(1945): 136-168.
/
$acx Hallfe, Mu§tafa b. 'Abdullah. Pusturu'!-'Amel li

islahi *1-Halel. istanbul, 1280/1863-64.
el-Haaimx. Risale fT Hakki’1-Kahve. istanbul, 1302/1884-85.
_______ . Risale 'alS Hazeriveti’d-Duhan. istanbul,

1302/1884-85.
Hafxg, Semseddxn Mufcammed es-?xrazx. The Divan-i Hafi2 . 2

vols. Translated by H. Wilberforce Clarke. Calcutta:
Government of India Central Printing Office, 1891.
Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph von. Geschichte Des Osmanischen

Reiches. 10 vols. Vienna: C. A. Hartleben’s Verlage,
1827-1835; reprint, Graz: Akademischen Druck, 1963.
Hasluck, F. W. Christianity and Islam under the Sultans. •
2 vols. Edited by Margaret M. Hasluck. New York,
Octagon Books, 1973.
Heyd, Uriel. Studies in Old Ottoman Criminal Law. Edited by

V. L. Menage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973.
Hodgson, Marshall G. S. The Venture of Islam. Vol. 2, The

Expansion of Islam in the Middle Periods. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1974.
iA, 1944ed. S.v. "Bayramiye," by A. Golpxnarlx.
iA, 19S1ed. S.v. "BirgivT Muhammed b. Pfr All," by Easxm

Kufralx. ^
iA. 1945 ed. S.v. "Qivi-zade Muhyxddxn Seyh Meipaed Efendi,"

by Cavid Baysun.
iA. 1970ed. S.v. "Ebiisuu’ud Efendi," by Cavid Baysun.
iA. 1977ed. S.v. "Egan," by Th. W. Juynball.
323
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
IA, 1977 ed. S.,.v. "Feyzullah Efendi," by Orhan F. Kopriilu.
iA, 1950 ed. S.v. "Hiiseyin," by Ahmed Ate?.
iA, 1950 ed. S.v. "Ibrahim," by Tayyib Gokbilgin.
IA, 1977 ed. S.v. "Koprululer,by Tayyib Gokbilgin.
iA, 1955 ed. S.v. "Helmed IV,” by Cavid Baysun.
iA, 1971 ed. S.v. "Mescid," by Semavi Eyice.
IA, 1971 ed. S.v • "Muhyl-a-DIn A r a b I , b y Ahared Ate?.
iA, 1971 ed. S.v. "Murad IV," by Cavid Baysun.
iA, 1966 ed. S.v. "Sema'" by Tahsin Yazici.
iA, 1977 ed. S.v. "Telhlf," by C. Orhonlu.
Ibn 'ArabI, Mufcylddrn. Fusus iil-Hikem. 5th ed. Translated

by M. Nuri Gencosman. istanbul: istanbul Kitabevi,
1981.
Ibn Teymiye, Tafclyuddln Ahmed. Ibn Taimiwa on Public and

Private Law in Islam (or Public Policy in Islamic
Jurisprudence). Translated by Omar A. Farrufch. Beirut,
1966.
_______ . Sivaset (es-Sivasetii* s-Ser *i w e ). Translated by
Vecdi Akyiiz. istanbul: .Dergah Vaymlari, 1985.
_______ . ,Le Traite de Droit Public d ’Ibn Taimiva (Traduction

Annotee de la Sivasa Sar'iva). Translated by Henri
Laoust. Beirut, Institut Fran<pais de Damas, 1948.
Itzkowitz, Norman. Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.
inalcxk, Halil. ’’The Heyday and Decline of the Ottoman

Empire." In The Cambridge Historv of Islam, ed. P. M.
Holt, Ann K. S. Lambton and Bernard Lewis. Vol. 1-
The Central Islamic Lands from ore-Islamic Times to the
First World War. 324-353. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1978.
_______ . "Impact of the Annales School cn Ottoman Studies

and New Findings." £hap. in Studies in Ottoman Social
and Economic Historv. Binghampton, N.Y., 1978; reprint,
London: Variorum Reprints, 1985.
_______ . "Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman

Empire, 1600-1700.” Chap. in Studies in Ottoman Social
and Economic Historv. Louvain, 1980; reprint, London:
Variorum Reprints, 1985.
324
_______ . The Ottoman. Empire: The Classical Age. 1300-1600.
Translated "by'Norman Itzkowitz and Colin Imber. London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973.
_______ . "Suleiman the Lawgiver and Ottoman Law." Archivum

Ottomanicum 1 (1969): 105-138.
istanbul Ansiklonedisi. 1968 ed. S.v. "Ekmel Tekkesi," by

Kakki Goktiirk.
Kadizade, Abmed b. Muhammed Emin. Cevhere-i Behive-i

Ahmed ire fI Serhi ’l-VasTveti 1 t-p. istanbul,
1218/1803-!.
Kafadar, Cemal. The Mvth of the Golden Age: The Image of the
Siilevmanic Era in Ottoman Historical Consciousness.
Paper presented as part of the conference on "The Age of
Suleyman the Magnificent" held at Princeton University, '
20-22 Xovember 198“.
_______ • "When Coins Turned into Drops of Dew and Bankers

Became Robbers of Shadows: The Boundaries of Ottoman
Economic Imagination at the End of the Sixteenth
Century.” Ph.D. diss., Institute of Islamic Studies,
Me Gill University, 1986.
"Kahve.” Tarih ve Toolum no. 12 (Aralik 1984): 9-i4.

/
Kara, Mustafa. Tekkeler ve Zaviveler. 2d ed. istanbul:

Dergah Yaymlan. 1980.
el-Kelaba^T Ebu Bekir Muhammed b. ishak. Dogus Devrinde

Tasavvuf (Ta'arruf). Translated by Suleyman Uludag.
istanbul: Dergah y aymlan, 1979.
Kmalizade, 'All Celebi. Ahlak-i 'Ala'I. Bulak, 1248.
Kissling, K. J. "Aus der Geschichte des Chalwetijje Ordens,"

Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft
102 (1953): 233-289.
"Kitabu HesailhiJI-Miislimin ve Menafi'il-Mu’minin." In

Osmanli Devlet Teskilatma Pair Kavnaklar. ed. Yasar
Yucel, 91-129. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kuruau Basimevi, 1988.
"Kitab-i Mustetab." In Osmanli Devlet Teskilatma Pair

Kavnaklar, ed. Ya§ar Y'ucel, 1-41. Ankara: Turk Tarih
Kurumu Basimevi, 1988.
K'oci Bey. Koci Bev Risalesi. istanbul: Matbaa-i Ebuzziya,

1303/1885-86.
Kurat, Akdes . imet. "The Reign of Mehmed IV, 1648-87." In

A History of the Ottoman Empire to 1730. ed. Michael A.
Cook, 157-177. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
j
325
Laoust, Henri. Essai sur les Doctrines Sociales_et '
Politioues ~de Taki-d-Din Ahmad b. Taimiva. Publications
d ’Archeologie, de Philologie et d ’Histoire, vol. 10.
Cairo: Imprimerie de l ’Institut Franpais d ’Archeologie
Orientale, 1939.
_______ . "Le Hanbalisme sous le Califat de Bagdad." Bevue

des Etudes Islamioues 27 (1959): 67-128.
_______ . "Le Hanbalisme sous les Mamlouks Bahrides.” Revue

des Etudes Islamioues 28 (1960): 1-72.
_______ . ”L ’Influence d ’Ibn Taymiyya." In Tslara: Past

Influence and Present Challenge, ed. A. T. Welch and
P. Cachia. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Universitv Press,
1979.
_______ . "Le Reformisme Orthodoxe des ’Salafiva* et les '

Caracteres Generaux de son Orientation Actuelle."
Revue des Etudes Islamioues 6 (1932): 181-191.
_______ . Les Schismes dans 1’Islam. Paris: Payot, 1965.
Levend, Agah Sirri. "Siyasetnameler." In Turk Dili

Arastirmalan Yilligx Belleten. 172-194. Ankara: Turk
Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1963.
Lewis, Bernard. "The Decline of the Ottoman Empire." Chap.

in The Emergence of Modern Turkey. 2d ed. London:
_______ . "Ottoman Observers of Ottoman Decline." Islamic

Studies. 1 (March 1962): 71-87.
Makdisi, George. "L’Islam Hanbalisant." Revue des Etudes

Islamiques 42 (1974): 211-244; 43 (1975): 45-76.
Mandaville, Jon E. "Usurious Piety: The Cash Waqf

Controversy in the Ottoman Empire." International
Journal of Middle East Studies 10 (1979): 289-308.
Martin, B. C. "A Short History of the Khalwati Order of

Dervishes." In Scholars. Saints and Sufis, ed. Nikki
Keddie, 275-305. Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 1972.
Hehimed §iireyya. Siciii-i ’OsmanT. 4 vols. istanbul,

1308/1890-91_1315/1897-98.
Meijmed Tahir. ’Osmanli Mu’ellifleri. 3 vols. istanbul:

Matbaa-i Amire, 1333/1914-15_1343/1924-25.
Menemencioglu, .Vermin and Fahir iz, eds. The Penguin Book of

Turkish Verse. Bungay, Suffolk: Penguin Books, 1978.
326
Mills, Margaret Ann. "Exploring an Archetype." In Heviana
Guldestesi (Aspects of Mevlana 1971>. comp. Annemarie
Schimmel, 43-62. Ankara: Guven Matbaasi, 1971.
Muhibbl, Muhammed. Hulasatu*1-Asar. 4 vols. Cairo, 1284/

1867-68.
Mustafa Liitfl. Tuhfetu’1-*AsrI fr Menakibi*1-MisrI. Bursa,

1309/i891-92.
The Mew Caxton Encyclopedia. 1969 ed. S.v. "Tobacco."
Ocak, Ahmet Yasar. ii.as-Turk inanclarmaa Hizir Yahut

Hizir-ilvas Kultu. Turk Eulturiinu Ara§tirma Enstitusii
Y a y m l a n , no. 54. Ankara: Ankara tfniversitesi
Basimevi, 1985.
_______ . "XVII. Yuzyilda Osmanli imparatorlugunda Dinde

Tasfiye (Piiritanizm) Teêbbuslerine Bir Bakis'-
'Kadizadeliler Hareketi.’" Turk Kultiiru Arastirmalan
1-2 (1983): 208-226.
Oztiirk, Necati. "Islamic Orthodoxy Among tee Ottomans in the

Seventeenth Century with Special Reference to the
Qadl-Zade Movement." Ph.D. diss., University of
Edinburgh, 1981.
Pakalin, Mehmet Zeki. Osmanli Tarih Devimleri ve Terimleri

Sozliigu. 3 vols. Istanbul: Milli Egitiin Basimevi,
1946-1954.
Parker, Geoffrey and Lesley M. Smith, eds. The General

Crisis of the Seventeenth Centurv. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul, 1985. !
Parry, W. J. "The Period of Murad IV, 1617-1648." In A

Historv of the Ottoman Empire to 1730. ed. Michael A.
Cook, 133-156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1976.
Sari Meijmed Pasa. Ottoman Statecraft: The Book of Counsel

for Vezirs and Governors. Translated by Walter
Livingston Wright. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1935.
Scholem, Gerschom. Sabbatai Sevi: The Mvstical Moss-iah.

Translated by R. J. Werblowsky. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 19J75.
Sertoglu, Midhat. Osmanli Tarih Lugati. istanbul: Fnderun

Kitabevi, 1986.
Shaw, Stanford J. History of the Ottoman Empire andModern
Turkey. Vol. 1, Enmi-r» of the Gazis: the Rise and
Decline of the Ottoman Empire. 1280-1808. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1976.
es-Siiyu^r, Celaleddln 'Abdurrahman b. Ebu Bekir.

Mecmu'atu*1-Mesa* ili*1-Tis'a. HaidarSbAd,
1316-17/1898-1900 and 1334/1915.
Semseddln Sami. Kamusu*1-A'lam. 6 vols. Istanbul,

1306/1888-89-1316/1898-99.
Simsek, Mehmet. ”Les Controverses sur la Bid'a en Turauie

(de Selim I a Mehmed IV, 1512-1656)." Ph.D. diss.’,
Sorbonne, 1977.
Talbi, M. "Bid'atler." A.U. ilahivat Fakultesi Dergisi 23

(1978): 445-460.
Tolasa, Harun, ed. Sevhiilislam Bahavi Efendi Divanmdan

Secmeler. Istanbul: Kervan Kitappilik, 1979.
Trimingham, J. Spencer. The Sufi Orders in Islam. Oxford:

Turk Ansiklooedisi. 1976 ed. S.v. "Mehmed Efendi,

Yanizade," by ismet Parmaksizoglu.
Ubicini, M. A. Letters on Turkey. 2 \-ols. 'Translated by

L a d y Easthope- London: John Murray, 1856.
Uluda?, Suleyman. Islam Acismdan Musiki ve Sema. istanbul:

irfan Matbaasi, 1976.
I
_________ . Islam Diisuncesinin Yaoisi. 2d ed. istanbul:
Dergah Y a y m l a n , 1980.
Uzunparsili, ismaii Hakki. Osmanli Devletinin ilmive

Teskiiati. 2d ed. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi,
X ZO't .
_______ . Osnar.li Tarihi. 3, pts. 1-2. Ankara: Turk Tarih

Kurumu Basimevi, 1977-83.
VicdanI, M. §adiij. Tomar-i Turuk-i 'Aliveden Halvetive.

t-ânbul: Evkaf-i islamiye Matbaasi,
3/1919-20-1341/1922-23.
Yazici, Tahsin. "Mevlana" Devrinde Sema." Sarkivat Mecmuasi

5 (1964): 135-150.
_______ • "retihten Sonra istanbuld-3_ilk Halvetl Seyhleri:

Ceiebi Muhammed Cemaleddin, Siinbiil Sinan ve Merkez
Efendi." istanbul Enstitusix Dergisi 2 (1950): 87-113.
328
Yurdaydm, Huseyin G. "Duûnce ve Bilim Tarihi (1300-1.600)."
In Turkive Tarihi. ed. Sina Ak$in. Vol. 2, Osmanl1
Devleti: 1300-1600. by Metin Kunt, Huseyin G. Yurdaydm
and Ayla Odekan. istanbul: Cem Yaymevi, 1988.
_______ . "Ustuvani Risalesi." A.tf. ilahivat Fak51tesi

Dergisi 10 (1962): 71-78.
Yuksel, Emrullah. "Mehmed Birgivi." Ataturk tiniversitesi

islami ilimler Fakultesi Dergisi 2 (1977): 175-185.
ez-Zebldl, Zeyneddln Aftmed b. AJjmed. b. .'Abdullatlf. Sahlh-i

Buh&ri Muhtasan Tecrid-i Sarth Tereemesi .ve Serhi.
12 vols. 7th ed. Translated by Ahmed Na'im and Kamil
Miras. Ankara: Basbakanlik Basimevi, 1982.
Zilfi, Madeline C. "The Kadlzadelis: Discordant Revivalism

in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul." Journal of NTear '
Eastern Studies. 45, no.4 (October i986): 251-269.
329

Kadizadeli

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kadizadeli

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The most advanced technology has been used to photo­

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­

Photographs included in the original manuscript have

University Microfilms International

T he KSdleSdeli m ovem ent: A n a tte m p t o f scri'at-mindcd reform in

Qavngoghi, Semiramis, PhJD.

C opyright © 1990 b y C w q o ^ n , Sem iram is. AH rig h ts reserved.

AN ATTEMPT OF SERI *AT-MINDED REFORM

IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF

RECOMMENDED FOR ACCEPTANCE

Near Eastern Studies

All Rights Reserved

This thesis aims to study a significant religious movement,

known as the Kadlzadeli, in seventeenth-century Ottoman society.

My purpose is to examine the Kadizadelis-as the proponents of a

specific attempt of Islamic reform in Ottoman society, namely as

serf1at-minded reformers in contrast to some well-known

seventeenth-century Ottoman intellectuals such as Koci Bey and

Katib Celebi who saw the solution to Ottoman decline in the

The Introduction gives an account of the sources that I

nave used. These are, Ottoman chronicles and biographical

sources, the works by western historians, diplomats and

travelers, and the works of modern historians. Naturally, the

books written by the Kadlzadeli and the Sufi leaders- themselves

constitute the essential part of my sources.

Part I briefly describes the setting of the movement, i.e.,

the seventeenth-century Ottoman Empire which was characterized by

such factors as population pressure, inflation, changes in the

taxation system and in the military organization. The

Kadizadelis emerged with a particular solution to the Ottoman

crisis: a strict observance of the Kur’an, sunnet and traditions

of the Prophet and abstention from innovations. We can therefore

consider the Kadlzadelis as the intellectual heirs of the selefis

crisis: a strict observance of the Kur’an, sunnet and traditions

of the Prophet and abstention from innovations. We can therefore

consider the Kadlzadelis as the intellectual heirs of the selefts

or the ehlii’1-hadTs. Part I also examines the life and works of

Birgivr Mehmed Efendi, who influenced the Kadlzadelis with his

which he was involved. Part II treats the Kadlzadeli movement in

three stages under the leadership of the three respective

KadTzadeli and SufT leaders. Part III examines the specific

issues of contention between the two sides.

Despite the movement’s suppression by the state in

1066/1656, the KadTzadelis continued their activities under the

leadership of their third leader VanT Mehmed Efendi. They,

however, failed to fulfill their objective of finding a remedy

for Ottoman decline. I have explored the reasons for this

failure as well as the overall influence and legacy of the

movement in the Conclusion.

Writing a dissertation has been a long and hard journey for

me. I should thank people who gave me assistance at different

stages on the way. I am especially grateful to my supervisor

Professor Cemal Kafadar. This thesis owes so much to his

profound interest in the pTdizadelis, his guidance, perceptive

criticisms and suggestions as well as his perpetual moral

When I was an undergraduate in Bosphorus University, I

attended the seminars of Professors §erif Mardin, Engin Akarlir

they gave me to do graduate work and for their continuous

encouragement. Professor Mardin also read my first draft and

The most advanced technology has been used to photo

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re