Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

The Myth of The Triumph of Fanaticism in the Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Empire*

Khaled El-Rouayheb
Cambridge / Mass.

Abstract Since Halil nalcks classic The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age (1973), the received view amongst historians has been that Ottoman scholars lost interest in the rational sciences after around 1600, largely as an effect of the rise of the puritanical zdeli movement. In the present article, I argue that there was in fact no decline of interest in the rational sciences amongst seventeenth century Ottoman scholars. On the contrary, interest in logic, dialectic, philosophy and rational theology seems to have been on the rise. Sunni Persian, Azeri and Kurdish scholars fleeing Safavid Iran brought with them new scholarly works in the rational sciences and gained a reputation as accomplished teachers. The number of Ottoman colleges in which works on the rational sciences were studied and taught also seems to have risen dramatically in the course of the 17th century. Keywords zdeli; Saalzde; Birgiv; Logic; Philosophy; Dialectic; Ottoman Empire; 17th century

The penultimate chapter of Halil nalcks deservedly classic work The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600, first published in 1973, is entitled The Triumph of Fanaticism. This describes how the Ottoman cultural and intellectual flourishing of the 15th and 16th centuries was brought to an end by a resurgence of religious obscurantism in the late 16th and 17th centuries. The older tradition
* I would like to thank Professor Cemal Kafadar and the Sohbet-i Osmani talk-society at Harvard University for giving me an opportunity to present an earlier draft of this article, and for their helpful questions and feedback.
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 DOI: 10.1163/157006008X335930

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

197

of cultivating rational sciences such as philosophy and astronomy was, according to nalcks account, swept away by the rise of the violently puritanical zdeli movement named after the fiery preacher Memed dzde (d. 1635) and inspired by the uncompromisingly strict religious scholar Memed Birgev (d. 1573). This decline of interest in the rational sciences, nalck suggested, ensured that the Ottomans were in no position to appreciate the most recent scientific and philosophical advancements that were being made at the time in Western Europe.1 nalcks claim was echoed by Marshall Hodgson in his influential three-volume survey of Islamic civilization The Venture of Islam from 1974. Hodgson was famously critical of the idea of a post-13thcentury decline of Islamic civilization, and stressed that it overlooked the cultural and intellectual florescence of Safavid Iran and Mughal India in the 17th century. However, he concededlargely following nalckthat in the Ottoman Empire there was little or no florescence in the 17th century. The so-called rational sciences had, according to Hodgson, flourished in the Ottoman Empire in the 15th and 16th centuries but had then suffered from the rise of religious purism in the 17th.2 With the authority of widely (and deservedly) admired historians such as nalck and Hodgson behind it, the idea that the Ottomans turned their backs on the rational sciences after the 16th century has become something of an axiom for much of later scholarship. It is, for example, treated as an established fact in the otherwise informative recent comparison of the Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal curricula by Francis Robinson.3 The truth of the matter would seem to be very different from what nalck thought it to be. The rational sciences were, I will argue in the following section, cultivated vigorously throughout the 17th century in the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, as I will argue in the
Halil nalck, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1973), 179-185. 2) Marshall Hodgson, The Venture of Islam (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1974), 3: 123. 3) Francis Robinson, Ottomans-Safavids-Mughals: Shared Knowledge and Connective Systems, in: Journal of Islamic Studies 8 (1997): 151-184, esp. 155f., 172.
1)

198

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

section after that, there is evidence to suggest that interest in these disciplines was on the rise in Ottoman scholarly circles in the 17th and 18th centuries. I. The evidence presented by nalck for the triumph of fanaticism thesis consists in (i) the appearance of the violently puritan zdeli movement from the late 16th century; (ii) the destruction of the Ottoman observatory in 1580, just a few years after its construction; and (iii) quotations from the Ottoman scholar and judge Amed Takprzde (d. 1560) and the Ottoman scribe and bibliographer Ktib eleb (d. 1657) lamenting the declining interest in the rational sciences in their time. A closer look at this evidence will show that it is far from conclusive. The appearance of the zdeli movement from the late 16th century is certainly undeniable. However, the picture that suggests itself, both from the comments of contemporaneous observers such as Ktib eleb and Nam (d. 1713), and from more recent scholarship, is that the zdelis were a minority within the class of religious scholars.4 In light of this, one should not simply assume that the appearance of the zdelis meant a decline in all the practices of which the zdelis disapproved. The fact that the zdelis aimed most of their invectives against the Sufis, for example, still did not prevent the appearance in the 17th century of such towering Turkish Ottoman mystics as sml Ruskh Anarv (d. 1631) and Sr Abdullh Efend (d.1661), famous for their commentaries on Jalluddn Rms Mesnevi;5 Abdullh Bosnav
Madeleine Zilfi, The Ottoman Ulema in the Post-Classical Age, 1600-1800 (Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1988), ch.4, esp. 190; G.L. Lewis (trans.), Ktib Cheleb: The Balance of Truth (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1957), 137 (It is unnecessary to point out that the followers of Qdzde at the present time are notorious for their extremism and have earned general reproach). 5) On Isml Anarv, see Nevzde A, adi l-ai, in: aai-i Numaniye ve Zeyilleri (Istanbul: ar Yayinlar, 1989), 2: 765 and the introduction to B. Gupinar, Ismail Ankaravi on the illuminative philosophy (Kuala Lumpur: International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization, 1996). On Sr Abdullh, see eykh Memed Efend,
4)

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

199

(d.1644) who came to be known as ri-i Fu on account of his esteemed commentary on Ibn Arabs Fu al-ikam; and Isml a Bursev (d. 1724), who is perhaps best know today for his voluminous mystical commentary on the Qurn entitled R albayn.6 To this list may be added other prominent 17th-century Turkish exponents of the ideas of Ibn Arab whose works continued to exert influence well beyond their own life-time, such as Hdyi Azz Mamd skdr (d. 1628) and Abdlaad Nr (d. 1651).7 In the Arabic-speaking provinces of the Empire too, a number of prominent mystics appeared in the 17th century such as the Aleppine Khalwat mystic Qim al-Khn (d.1699), whose al-Sayr wa-l-sulk il malik al-mulk became an influential Sufi manual for later centuries; the Damascene Qdir and Naqshband mystic Abd al-Ghan al-Nbulus (d.1731) who wrote vigorous apologies for controversial theories and practices of Sufis such as the oneness of being (wadat al-wujd) and listening to music, and who also wrote commentaries on some of the classics of monistic mysticism such as the Dwn of Ibn al-Fri and Fu al-ikam of Ibn Arab; and the Shar and Naqshband mystics of Medina Amad al-Qushsh (d. 1661) and his disciple Ibrhm al-Krn (d. 1690) who were also prominent and influential apologists for the idea of the the oneness of being.8 The number of prominent Ottoman exponents of the
Veyi l-fual, in: aai-i Numaniye ve Zeyilleri (Istanbul: agri Yayinlari, 1989), 3: 280ff. Both commentaries on the Mesnevi were printed in Istanbul in the 19th century, Isml Anarvs in 6 volumes by Mabaa-yi mire in 1251/1835-6 and Sr Abdullhs in 5 volumes by Mabaa-yi mire in 1288/1871-2. 6) On Abdullh Bosnav, see eykh Memed Efend, Veyi l-fual, 3: 146 and Muammad Amn al-Muibb, Khulat al-athar f ayn al-qarn al-d ashar (Cairo: al-Mabaa al-Wahbiyya, 1284/1867-8), 3: 86. On Isml a Bursev, see eykh Memed Efend, Veyi l-fual, 4: 683. Isml as Qurn commentary was repeatedly printed in Cairo and Istanbul in the 19th and early 20th centuries (for example, Blq 1255/1839-40, Blq 1287/1870-1 and Mabaa-yi mire, 1285/1868-9). 7) On Azz Mamd skdr, see Nevzde A, adi l-ai, 2: 760ff. On Nr, see eykh Memed Efend, Veyi l-fual, 3: 547ff. The formers divn was repeatedly printed in Istanbul in the 19th century (Muhibb Mabaas, 1287/1870-1 and Mabaa-i Hayriye 1338/1919-20), as were the collected sermons (meviz) of the latter (Mabaa-yi mire, 1263/1846-7 and Bolulu brahim Efend Mabaas, 1309/1891-2). A number of shorter treatises by both authors were also printed in the 19th century. 8) See Muammad Khall al-Murd, Silk al-durar f ayn al-qarn al-thn ashar (Istanbul

200

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

theories of Ibn Arab in the 17th century is indeed striking, and it is doubtful whether the 15th or 16th centuries produced a greater number. Anyone who infers from the appearance of the zdelis that there was a decline in interest in Sufism in the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century would seem to be making a serious misjudgment. And it is not at all clear why inferring that there was a decline in interest in the rational sciences is any more justified. Furthermore, it is not even clear that the zdelis were uniformly opposed to the rational sciences. Ktib eleb attributed to Memed zde the statement Who sheds a tear if a logician dies? during a sermon.9 However, this may not have been a considered or uniform opinion in zdeli circles. Memed Birgev himself explicitly condoned the study of logic, dialectic, rational theology (kalm), mathematics and astronomy. In his major work, al-arqa al-Muammadiyya, he stated explicitly that mathematics (isb) is a far kifya, i.e. that studying and teaching it is incumbent on some within the Muslim community (but not on each and every Muslim).10 The study of rational theology (kalm) is also, Birgev wrote, a far kifya.11 As for the sciences of the philosophers (ulm al-falsifa) Birgevs verdict is unexpectedly nuanced. The status of logic (maniq) is the same as rational theology, i.e. it is a far kifyaa verdict that is in stark contrast to earlier anbal purists such as Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328) and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d.1350). Birgevs positive but laconic verdict on logic invited the following comment from his commentator Receb mid (fl. 1676), who followed Birgev closely in his condemnations of the innovations of popular religion and the Sufis of his day:

& Cairo: 1291/1874-5 -- 1301/1883-4), 1: 5f. (On al-Krn), 3: 30-38 (on Nbulus), and 4: 9f. (on Khn). On Qushsh, see Muibb, Khulat al-athar, 1: 343-6. 9) G.L. Lewis (trans.), Ktib Cheleb: The Balance of Truth (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1957), 136. 10) M. Birgev, al-arqa al-muammadiyya [printed with the commentaries of Receb mid (fl. 1676) and Ab Sad Khdim (d. 1762)] (Cairo: Muafa al-Bb al-Halab, 1348/1929-30), 1: 255. 11) Ibid, 1: 258.

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

201

It [logic] is among the most noble of the divine and spiritual sciences, and some wise men have made it the chief of the rational sciences, and some religious scholars have made it an individual duty [on each and every Muslim] since on it depends knowing the necessary existent In sum, logic is a science of dazzling demonstration like the sun that is not hidden anywhere. No one denies its good qualities except those who are unable to know realities and see subtleties.12

Geometry (handasa), which Birgev considered to be one of the sciences of the philosophers, is permissible (mub). As for metaphysics (ilhiyyt), parts of it conflict with religion and is therefore prohibited, unless one studies it in order to refute it (ill al wajhil-radd). Other parts of metaphysics do not conflict with revelation and these have been incorporated into the discipline of kalm. Physics (abiyyt) can likewise be divided into claims that conflict with religion and claims that have been incorporated into kalm.13 Birgev is here obviously alluding to the fact that the standard works of rational theology studied in the Ottoman Empire such as awli al-anwr of Bayw (d. 1317) and al-Mawqif of j (d. 1355) included a great deal of physics and metaphysics. The study of medicine (ibb), Birgev continued, is to be encouraged (mandb), though without being a duty.14 Astronomy falls into the same category. Astrology, on the other hand, is a prohibited science. Birgev wrote:
I say: what is prohibited of the science of the stars (ilm al-nujm) is what is related to judgments such as If a lunar or solar eclipse or an earthquake or something like this occurs at such-and-such a time then such-and-such will occur. As for knowing the direction to which prayer should be made (qibla) and the times of prayer (al-mawqt), which is the science called haya: since these are conditions for prayer they must be known by thorough investigation of phenomena, and this science is one of the conditions of investigation and knowledge, and hence it is permissible to study it.15

12) 13) 14) 15)

Ibid, 1: 262 (margins). Ibid, 1: 262-265. Ibid, 1: 266. Ibid, 1: 260f.

202

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

The fact that even one of the strictest of Ottoman scholars, and the person who inspired the zdeli movement, did not have a problem with the science of astronomy invites a reconsideration of the motives behind the demolition of the Ottoman observatory in 1580. It is indeed clear that the main motive for building the observatory in 1577 had been astrological, and that likewise the motive for destroying it a few years later was hostility to, and apprehension of, astrology and not astronomy. The historian of science Aydn Sayl, who has published a number of studies dealing with the short career of the Ottoman observatory, has noted that the reason and purpose for the foundation of the Observatory appears to have been almost completely astrological.16 In one of the lengthiest contemporary accounts of the career of the Observatory, according to Sayl, astrological activities are mentioned in detailed fashion, and both in praising him [the court astronomer-astrologer who headed the observatory] and in trying to justify the act of the demolition of the Observatory.17 The historian of Arabic astronomy D.A. King has also noted that the leveling of the observatory seems to have been a consequence of the Ottoman court-astronomer/ astrologers incorrect prediction of an Ottoman victory over the Safavids following the appearance of the famous comet of 1577.18 It is doubtful whether astrology was one of the disciplines that nalck had in mind when he claimed that Ottoman scholars turned away from the rational sciences in the late 16th century. The quotations from Takprzde and Ktib eleb adduced in support of the nalck thesis are also far from conclusive. Lamenting the decline of the times is a well-known topos. It is risky to treat such laments as anything more than this unless they offer, or are supported by, other evidence.19 Certainly, Takprzde and Ktib
A. Sayl, Al al-Dn al-Manrs Poems on the Istanbul Observatory, in: Belleten 20 (1956): 429-484. The quotation is from p. 445. See also A. Sayl, The Observatory in Islam, 2nd edition (Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1988), 303f. Sayl himself sees religious fanaticism as a factor behind the demolition of the observatory, but he does not present any evidence that would justify using this expression. 17) Sayl, Al al-Dn al-Manrs Poems, 446. 18) D.A. King, Ta al-Dn b. Muammad. b. Marf , in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition (Leiden: EJ Brill, 1960-2002), 10: 132f. 19) The pitfall of treating such laments as straightforward observations of fact, rather than
16)

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

203

eleb may have had the impression that there was a decline of interest in the rational sciences in their day by comparison to bygone times. However, both scholars were themselves enthusiastic about the rational sciences and might well have been prone to exaggerate the extent to which these sciences were respected and cultivated in an idealized past. The perhaps most telling reason for not taking the laments of Takprzde and Ktib eleb at face-value is that it is possible to adduce quotations from 17th-century Ottoman scholars who were under the impression that there had been a significant rise in interest in philosophy in their time. For example, the Meccan scholar Muammad Al b. Alln al-iddq (d. 1648), in his commentary on Birgevs al-arqa al-Muammadiyya, wrote:
It has become prevalent in this time, and the time just before it, to study the idiocies of the philosophers among most people (wa-qad ghalaba f hdhl-zamni wa qablahu bi-qallin al-ishtighlu bi-jahlti-l-falsifa al akhtharil-ns), and they call it wisdom (ikma) and consider as ignorant those who are innocent of it. They think that they are accomplished people and persist in studying it, and you hardly find any of them who have memorized any Qurn or adth from the Prophet. They are more appropriately described as ignorant and ignoble rather than wise, for they are the enemies of the prophets, and corrupters of Islamic law, and they are more harm to the Muslims than the Jews and Christians.20

Almost a century after Ibn Alln, the Turkish scholar Memed Salzde Mara (d. 1732-3) was still lamenting what he considered to be the enthusiasm of many of his contemporary Ottoman scholars and students for philosophy.21 Salzde emphasized that
literary contributions to a genre, has been noted by D.A. Howard in his Ottoman Historiography and the Literature of Decline of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, in: Journal of Asian History 22 (1988): 52-77. 20) The passage is quoted in Receb mids commentary on Birgevs al-arqa, see Birgev, al-arqa al-muammadiyya, 1:80 (margins). 21) On Saklzde, see S. Reichmuth, Bildungskanon und Bildungreform aus der Sicht eines islamischen Gelehrten der Anatolischen Provinz: Muammad al-Sajaql (Saaqlzde, gest. um 1145/1733) und sein Tartb al-ulm, in: R. Arnzen & J. Thielmann (eds.), Words, Texts and Concepts cruising the Mediterranean Sea (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 493522.

204

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

it was incumbent to declare as infidels Aristotle, Plato and the Islamic philosophers who followed them such as Ibn Sn and Frb and their likes. He then explicated this last phrase in the following manner:
If you say: Who are their likes? We say: Those who are fond of philosophy and indulge in it and call it wisdom (ikma) by way of extolling it and are proud of what they have learned of philosophy, and who consider as ignorant those who are innocent of it. By the Lord of the Heavens and the Earth! These are the unbelieving philosophizers! One encountered their likes in the time of [the jurist] kh eleb (d. 1495-6) and he said about them : The desire to study jurisprudence is slight amongst the philosophizers whose lot in the afterworld is nothing but fire. Verily they will reach hell and what an end! I say: Perhaps the philosophizers in our time are more than they were in his time (wa laalla-l-mutafalsifna f arin aktharu minhum f arihi).22

Salzde thus believed that there was more rather than less interest in philosophyunder the guise of the name ikmaamongst Ottomans in his own time than there had been in the 15th century. He suggested that this impious state of affairs exposed the Ottoman polity to the danger of divine punishment in the form of further military defeats by Christian Europe:
Philosophy has become widespread in the Ottoman lands in our times (wa qad shat al-falsafatu f bildi-l-Rmi23 f zamnin), the year 1130/1717. Before that by some eighty years or more the Christians conquered many of the Ottoman lands and defeated the soldiers of the Sovereign (malik) of Islam
Memed Salzde, Tartb al-ulm, ed. Muammad b. Isml al-Sayyid Amad (Beirut: Dr al-Bashir al-Islamiyya, 1988), 229. 23) I translate f bildi-l-Rm as in the Ottoman lands. The phrase bild al-Rm could also refer to the European parts of the Empire, but there is nothing to suggest that Salzde believed that philosophy was more actively studied in the European parts of the Empire than in the Anatolian. For another example of the term being used of the Ottoman Empire as a whole, see the comments of Rip P (d. 1763) to the effect that Mull Sadrs philosophical magnum opus al-ikma al-mutaliya was not well-known in al-diyr alrmiyya (Rip P, Safnat al-Rghib wa dafnat al-malib, printed in R. al-Ajam & R. Darj (eds.), Mawsat al-mualat al-mawt f safnat al-Rghib wa dafnat almalib [Beirut: Maktabat Lubnn 2000], 857). He could hardly have been claiming that they were only unknown in the European parts of the Empire.
22)

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

205

several times and took countless Muslims and their families captive. It is now feared that there will be a general conquest of the Christians, and so we ask of God that He remove this cause from [the realm of ] the Sovereign of Islam and his viceroys, and thus that the scholars (ulam) desist from teaching philosophy and that those who do not desist are punished.24

Salzdes reference to calamitous defeats and territorial losses suffered by the Ottomans some eighty or more years before 1130/ 1717 is curious. The ill-fated second attempt to seize Vienna, and the consequent loss of Hungary to the Austrians had occurred, not eighty, but only a little over thirty years prior to 1130/1717. Whatever events Salzde may have had in mind, it is clear that he thought that philosophy was being studied enthusiastically in Ottoman lands. It is also worth noting that Salzde was referring to the study and teaching of philosophy by the ulem class. This makes it very unlikely that his invective was primarily directed at the activity of individual scholars such as Esad Yanyav (d. 1722) who, under the patronage of the court of Amed III (r. 1703-1730), retranslated Aristotle into Arabic (from Latin Renaissance translations) and also translated into Arabic some of the Latin works of the Greek-born Renaissance Aristotelian Ioannis Kottounios (d. 1657).25 Salzde seems to have been incensed by a more widespread teaching and study of philosophy in Ottoman medreses. Elsewhere in the same work, he bemoaned what he saw as the tendency of the students of his age to neglect the study of the longer classical handbooks of theology (kalm), such as al-Mawqif of j (d. 1355) with its commentary by Jurjn (d. 1413), and instead study books on philosophy.26 Salzdes fulminations against the study of philosophy, and its dire effects upon the military strength of the Ottoman Empire, are of course also topoi. He explicitly modeled his statements on the suggestion of the earlier anbal scholar Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya
Ibid, 234nA (the footnote reproduces a marginal annotation to the text by Salzde himself ). 25) On Esad Yanyav, see D. Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture (London: Routledge, 1998), 175; and C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur (Leiden: EJ Brill, 1937-49), 2: 447 and Supplement 2: 665. 26) Salzde, Tartb al-ulm, 149 and 206.
24)

206

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

(d. 1350) that the study of philosophy under the Abbasids was punished by God in the form of the Mongol invasions.27 However, there is good reason to believe that Salzdes complaints had some basis in contemporary realities and should not be dismissed as quixotic attacks on non-existent enemies. In the 19th century, the handbook on physics and metaphysics entitled Hidyat al-ikma by Athruddn Abhar (d. 1265) was repeatedly printed in Istanbul along with the commentary of Q Mr usayn Maybud (d. 1504), both in its original Arabic and in a Turkish translation made by Memed Akirmn (d. 1760).28 Also printed in the 19th century were three super-commentaries on this work (in Arabic) by late 17th- and 18th-century Ottoman scholars: ara Khall Trev (d. 1711), Memed Kefev (d.1754) and Isml Gelenbev (d. 1791).29 The fact that a translation and at least three super-commentaries on the work were penned by Ottoman scholars in the late 17th and 17th century is a sure sign that the work was regularly studied in that period. The fact that Salzde explicitly stated that many of his contemporary philosophizers chose to call the discipline ikma also suggests that Abhars Hidyat al-ikma was one of the books Salzde may have had in mind when fulminating against the study of philosophy by Ottoman ulem and students. Another work about which Salzde complained was the treatise on the proof of a necessary existent (ithbt al-wjib) by the Persian philosopher and theologian Jalluddn Dawwn (d. 1501). Many Ottoman students, according to Salzde, wasted a whole year studying this work along with its commentaries and super-commenta-

Salzde, Tartb al-ulm, 233-4, citing Ibn al-Qayyims Ighthat al-lahfn. The Arabic text was repeatedly printed in Istanbul in the 19th and early 20th centuries (Mabaa-yi mire 1263/1846-7; Mabaa-yi mire 1283/1866-7; ac Muarrem Bosnav Mabaas 1289/1870-1; Mabaa-yi mire 1308/1890-1; rif Efend Mabaas 1321/19034; rif Efend Mabaas 1325/1907-8). For the Turkish translation by Memed Akirmani, see Reichmuth, Bildungskanon und Bildungsreform, 520, n. 45. It was printed by Mabaa-yi mire in Istanbul in 1266/1849-50. 29) ara Khall, shiya al shiyat al-Lr (Istanbul: Mabaa-yi mire, 1271/1855); Memed Kefev, Hshiya al shiyat al-Lr (Istanbul: irket-i efiyye-yi Osmniyye, 1309/1891-2); Isml Gelenbev, shiya al shiyat al-Lr (Istanbul: Mabaa-yi mire, 1270/1853-4).
27) 28)

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

207

ries.30 Again, his complaint is supported by the bio-bibliographic evidence. At least four of Salzdes Ottoman contemporaries: aydar usaynbd (d. 1717), Memed Tarss (d. 1732-3), Amed zabd (d.1750), and Memed Kefev (d. 1754) wrote glosses on the super-commentary of Mrz Jn abbullh Bghanv (d. 1586) on the commentary of Mull anaf Tabrz (fl. 1516) on the older of Dawwns two treatises on the subject.31 Another example of the kind of Ottoman philosophizing scholar Salzde may have had in mind is his older contemporary ara Khall Trev (d. 1711).32 This scholars literary output was mainly devoted to philosophy, dialectic and logic. His major works, many of which were still sufficiently influential in the 19th century to be printed, were: Glosses on the commentary of Q Mr Maybud (d. 1504) on Hidyat al-ikma (on physics and metaphysics) by Abhar and the super-commentary thereon by Muliuddn Lr (d. 1579).33 (ii) Glosses on the commentary of Memed Fenr (d. 1431) on sghj (on logic) by Abhar and the super-commentary thereon by l Amed (d. ca. 1543).34 (iii) A commentary on a treatise on the nature of logic by Memed Emn irvn (d. 1627).35 (iv) Glosses on the commentary of Jalluddn Dawwn (d. 1501) on Tahdhb al-maniq (on logic) by Saduddn Taftzn (d. 1390) and the super-commentary thereon by Mr Ab l-Fat usayn (d. 1568).36 (i)

Salzde, Tartb al-ulm, 150ff. R. Mach, Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts (Yahuda Section) in the Garrett Collection (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), nrs. 2402, 2403, 2404 and 2406. 32) On ara Khall, see eykh Memed Efend, Veyi l-fual, 4: 329f. 33) Printed with Lrs super-commentary by Mabaa-yi mire in Istanbul in 1271/1855. 34) Repeatedly printed in Istanbul in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, for example by Mabaa-yi mire in 1279/1862-3 and by Yay Efend Mabaas in 1289/1873-3. 35) Printed in Istanbul by Mabaa-yi mire in 1258/1842-3 and 1288/1871-2. 36) Mach, Catalogue, 3238.
30) 31)

208

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

(v)

Glosses on a treatise on dialectic (db al-bath) by Takprzde (d. 1560) and the authors own commentary thereon.37

Despite his interests in logic, dialectic, physics and metaphysics, ara Khall was hardly a marginal or disreputable figure of the ulem class. He rose to the position of kaziasker of Anatolia, the third-highest position to which an Ottoman scholar could rise.38 The example of ara Khall alone should be sufficient to cast doubt on the thesis of a triumph of fanaticism in the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century. It should be added that Salzde himself was far from being an obscurantist who condemned all rational sciences. He went out of his way to condone the study of astronomy, mathematics, medicine, logic and dialectic. The study of mathematics and medicine were unproblematic for Salzde,39 as they had been for Birgev, and it is indeed very difficult to find any Islamic scholar through the ages who disapproved of the study of these sciences. When it came to astronomy, helike Birgevmade a distinction between what he called haya, i.e. the study of heavenly bodies and their movements on the basis of observation. This was a praiseworthy science that was useful for determining the direction of prayer and calculating the times of prayer. By contrast, what he called akm al-nujmthe effort to use the results of the former science to predict the course of future events on earthwas a prohibited science. Salzde went on to contrast astronomy as mentioned by the philosophers, and incorporated into the theological works of Muslim scholars of the late medieval period, with Islamic astronomy (al-haya al-islmiyya) as practiced by scholars such as Jalluddn al-Suy (d.1505), which attempted to derive the principles of cosmology from reported sayings of prominent figures from the earliest generations of Islam. He explicitly stated that in case
Mach, Catalogue, 3375. For a list of Ottoman Grand Muftis and kaziaskers in the 17th and 18th centuries, see Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, 246ff. 39) Salzde, Tartb al-ulm, 180f. (on mathematics and geometry), and 184f. (on medicine and surgery).
37) 38)

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

209

of conflict between rational and traditional cosmology, it was the latter that should be reinterpreted to accord with the former. It had, for example, been proven conclusively that the sun was many times larger than the earth, and hence it was not possible, as some early Islamic traditions asserted, that the sky rested on a great mountainrange circumscribing the earth.40 As for logic, studying it is a communal duty incumbent on the Muslim community as a whole (far kifya), Salzde wrote. Particularly, the study of inferences (bath al-adilla) is a duty, he maintained, since it formed part of the skills needed in studying the principles of jurisprudence.41 It is also a duty, he added, to exercise ones mind (tashdh al-khir) because stupidity corrupts religion (al-amaq yufsidu-l-dn).42 Salzde conceded that earlier scholars such as the anbal Ibn Qayyim alJawziyya (d. 1350) and the anaf Ibn Nujaym (d.1563) had prohibited logic, but insisted that this should be understood to relate to logic mixed with philosophy. The kind of logic that was studied in his time (al-maniq al-mutadwal al-yawm) was by contrast free from the heretical doctrines of the philosophers.43 As for dialectic, Salzde maintained that it was practically impossible to follow scholarly discussions without having studied the discipline. Salzde himself wrote an influential compendium of dialectic entitled Taqrr al-qawnn al-mutadwala f ilm al-munara and a widely studied epitome of it entitled al-Risla al-waladiyya. The discipline of dialectic (db al-bath) was a thoroughly rational discipline closely related to logic, and Salzdes two works in the field testify to his familiarity with the logical works studied throughout the Islamic world, by the likes of Qubuddn Rz (d. 1365), Saduddn Taftzn (d. 1390) and Sayyid Sharf Jurjn (d. 1413). The idea that Ottoman scholars turned away from all the rational sciences in the 17th century simply cannot be sustained. Only the study of philosophy seems to have raised indignation in some circlesand it is important to keep in mind that it also did so in Safavid Persia and Mughal India, and that it had also done so in
40) 41) 42) 43)

Ibid, 181-4. Ibid, 139f. Ibid, 114f. Ibid, 114 and 235.

210

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

the Ottoman Empire in the 15th and 16th centuries. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that this indignation did not prevent a considerable number of Ottoman scholars and students from openly studying and teaching the discipline. There is even reason to believe that Salzdes impressions were right, and that interest in philosophy was on the rise in the 17th and 18th century. II. The rise of fanaticism thesis has hitherto obscured from historians view a remarkable social and cultural phenomenon that occurred in the Ottoman Empire in the second half of the 17th century and the first decades of the 18th. According to one estimate, the number of Istanbul-system medreses may have doubled between 1650 and 1705.44 If, as is almost certain, the philosophical sciences (logic, physics and metaphysics) were a core part of the curricula of these colleges, then a doubling of colleges within the span of a life-time must have meant a noticeable rise in the number of teachers and students engaged in studying and teaching philosophy. Another element that seems to have reinvigorated the study of the philosophical sciences was the influx of Sunni Persian, Azeri and Kurdish scholars in the wake of the establishment of the Shii Safavid dynasty in Iran in the early 16th century, and then the conquest of Azerbaijan and Shirwan by the Safavids in the early 17th. The first event brought to the Ottoman Empire illustrious scholars such as Muliuddn Lr (d. 1579),45 who wrote a widely studied supercommentary on the handbook of philosophy entitled Hidyat alikma by Abhar and its commentary by Q Mr usayn Maybud (d. 1504), and asan b. usayn Amlash (fl.1536-48) who wrote a handbook on logic entitled Takml al-maniq whose sophisticated treatment of modal syllogisms has been studied by Nicholas Rescher.46 The second movement of scholars, in the early 17th
Madeleine Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, 205. Nevzde A, adi l-ai, 2: 169-172. 46) N. Rescher & A. van der Nat, The Theory of Modal Syllogistic in Medieval Arabic Philosophy, in: N. Rescher, Studies in Modality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974),
44) 45)

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

211

century, is perhaps more important from the perspective of the present article. Some of the more influential scholars who were involved in this movement were: (i) Memed Emn adruddn irvnzde (d. 1627), who enjoyed the patronage of the Ottoman commander in the wars against the Safavids in the first decade of the 17th century. He later came to Istanbul and was given a position at the Amediyye College established by Sultan Amed I (r. 1603-17).47 Memed Emn was a student of usayn Khalkhl (d.1604), who in turn was a student of Mrz Jn abbullh Bghanv (d. 1586).48 Mrz Jn Bghanv, a Sunni Persian scholar, was the author of widely studied works on philosophy, including: a super-commentary on Ibn Sns epitome of philosophy al-Ishrt wa-l-tanbiht and its commentary by Naruddn s (d. 1274); a supercommentary on a handbook on physics and metaphysics entitled ikmat al-ayn by Najmuddn Ktib (d. 1277) and its commentary by Ibn Mubrakshh Bukhr (fl. second half of the 14th century); and a super-commentary on Jalluddn Dawwns treatise Ithbt al-wjib and its commentary by Mull anaf Tabrz (fl. 1516).49 Mrz Jns

17-56. Note that Rescher mistakenly took the name of the scribe (Muammad diq alShirwn) to be the name of the author. The authors name is asan b. usayn b. Muammad al-Ajam as revealed by an autograph manuscript of Takml al-maniq (Suleymaniye: MS: Laleli 2561: fols. 1-39). This is identical to the asan b. usayn b. Muammad alAmlash who wrote all al-ul on anaf jurisprudence (autograph MS: Suleymaniye: Kadizade Mehmed 104, completed in 1548) and Bar al-afkar, a super-commentary on Taftzns commentary on al-Aqid al-nasafiyya (on theology) dedicated to the Ottoman Grand Vizier Ays P (1536-39). 47) Nevzde A, adi l-ai, 2:712; Muibb, Khulat al-athar, 3: 475f. 48) Muibb, Khulat al-athar, 2: 122. On Bghanv, see Mrz Muammad Bqir Khwansr, Rawt al-jannt f awl al-ulam wa-l-sdt (Qum, 1391/1971-2), 3: 12; and C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur (Leiden, 1937-49), Suppl. 2: 594 [Note that Brockelmann misread Bghanv as Bghand. Bghanv is a town near Shiraz]. 49) R. Mach, Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts (Yahuda Section) in the Garrett Collection (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), nrs. 2401 and 3076. For the super-commentary on s commentary on Avicennas al-Ishrat, see MS: British Library (London), Or.6337 and MS: Chester Beatty Library (Dublin), 3998.

212

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

(ii)

student usayn Khalkhl wrote his own treatise on proving the existence of a necessary existent (ithbt al-wjib); a much-studied astronomical treatise entitled Shar al-dira al-hindiyya; and super-commentaries on Dawwns commentaries on Tahdhb al-maniq (on logic) and al-Aqid al-audiyya (on theology).50 Khalkhls student Memed Emn irvn also left behind a number of works, including an encyclopedia of the sciences dedicated to Sultan Amed I entitled al-Fawid al-khqniyya, which is one of the sources used by Ktib eleb in his well-known survey of books and sciences entitled Kashf al-unn. Another of his works was Rislat jihat al-wada, a treatise expanding on remarks made by Memed Fenr (d. 1431) in his commentary on Abhars sghj on what made the numerous enquiries of logic one discipline. The treatise was still being studied in Ottoman circles in the nineteenth century, as evidenced by the fact that it was printed at least three times in that period in Istanbul.51 Also repeatedly printed was the commentary on the treatise by ara Khall Trev (d. 1711). One of Memed Emns grandchildren, Memed i adruddn-irvnzde (d. 1708), went on to become Grand Mufti of the Ottoman Empire. This grandson wrote at least one treatise on a point of logic,52 and copied in his own hand the manuscript of asan b. usayn Amlashs above-mentioned handbook on logic Takml al-maniq that was studied by Rescher. Mull Mamd Kurd (d. 1663-4), who settled in Damascus in the first decade of the 17th century.53 The 17th century Damascene historian Muammad Amn al-Muibb (d.

E. hsanolu et. al. (eds.), Osmanl Astronomi Literatr Tarihi (Istanbul: IRCICA, 1997), 1: 246-249. R. Mach, Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts (Yahuda Section) in the Garrett Collection (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), nrs. 2293 and 3243. 51) Istanbul: Mabaa-yi mire 1262/1843-4; Mabaa-yi mire 1277/1860-1; Bosnal ac Muarrem Mabaas 1288/1871-2. 52) Memed di b. Feyzullh b. Memed Emn irvn, Risla f kawn al-asawwurt wa-l-adqt naariyya (MS: Dr al-Kutub al-Miriyya [Cairo], 121 Majami). 53) Muammad Amn al-Muibb, Khulat al-athar, 4: 329f.
50)

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

213

1699) wrote of Mull Mamd that he was the first to teach the books of the Persians in Damascus and that he opened the gate of verification in that city. The phrase the books of the Persians seems to refer to the works of late 15th and early 16th century Persianate scholars such as Jalluddn Dawwn (d.1501) and Imuddn Isfaryin (d. 1537) on rational sciences such as logic, dialectic, rational theology, semantics-rhetoric, and grammar.54 Mull Mamd Kurd was one of several 17th-century Kurdish scholars who gained a reputation as a teacher of the rational sciences. Other prominent Kurdish scholars of the period include: (i) Mull eleb mid (d. 1656), like Memed Emn irvn a student of usayn Khalkhl. Mull eleb became part of the entourage of the Ottoman Sultan Murad IV (r. 1623-1640), to whom he dedicated a work, entitled Unmdhaj al-ulm, treating a number of issues in various disciplines, including astronomy.55 According to the Damascene biographer Muibb (d. 1699), Mull eleb counted as his students almost all prominent Ottoman scholars active in the last quarter of the 17th century.56 According to the biographer eykh Memed Efend (d. 1733), Mull eleb was particularly renowned for his command of the rational sciences (funn-i aliyye) and in particular astronomy (felek).57 He wroteamong other thingsa commentary on the astronomical almanac (zj) of Ulu Be

See my Opening the Gate of Verification: The Forgotten Arabic-Islamic Florescence of the Seventeenth Century, in: International Journal of Middle East Studies 38 (2006): 263-281, esp. 264ff. 55) E. hsanolu et al., Osmanl Astronomi Literatr Tarihi (Istanbul: IRCICA, 1997), 1: 291-294. 56) Muibb, Khulat al-athar, 4: 308. Muibb gives Mull elebs first name as Muammad. 57) eykh Memed Efend, Veyi l-fual, 3: 233. eykh gives Mull elebs first name as Al.
54)

214

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

(d.1449)58 and a super-commentary on the commentary of Qdzde Rm (fl.1412) on the manual of geometry entitled Ashkl al-tass, by Shamsuddn Samarqand (fl.128391);59 (ii) Umar ill (fl. 1655) active in the predominantly Kurdish town of mid/Diyarbakr. ill wrote a widely studied commentary on Khulat al-isb, a handbook on mathematics by the well-known Safavid scholar Bahuddn almil (d. 1621). He also wrote a commentary on the short Persian epitome of philosophy Jmi git-num attributed to Q Mr usayn Maybud (d. 1504).60 (iii) Muammad Sharf al-Krn (d. 1676) who taught philosophy and philosophical theology to, among others, the prominent mystic Ibrhm al-Krn (d. 1690), who in turn is known to have taught Hidyat al-ikma by Abhar and ikmat al-ishrq by the illuminationist philosopher Suhraward (d. 1191) in Medina.61 Muammad Sharf al-Krns works include a super-commentary on the commentary of s on Ibn Sns Ishrt and a super-commentary on Tahfut al-falsifa by Hcazde Bursev (d. 1488), a work
MS: Suleymaniye: Hafid Efend 455: fols. 1-53. MS: Suleymaniye: ehid Ali Paa 1775: fols. 103-166. 60) See E. hsanolu et. al., Osmanl Matematik Literatr Tarihi (Istanbul: IRCICA, 1999), 1: 112-118. hsanolu et. al. vocalize the scholars nisba as ull, whereas I presume he hailed from the town of ille in Adyamin province near Diyarbakr. They also estimate his date of death to have been around 1613 (though in the course of the entry it is stated that 1640 is a more likely approximation). This cannot be true, since an extant autograph manuscript of his commentary on Jmi Git-Num is dated 1066/1655 (MS: 45 Hk 2732, listed on www.yazmalar.gov.tr, website last visited July 2, 2008). The colophon of an extant manuscript of his commentary on Khulat al-isb, copied from the autograph in 1074/1664 (MS: 06 Hk 2006, listed on www.yazmalar.gov.tr, website last visited July 2, 2008) also mentions the author as alive at the time of copying (kutiba min nuskhati muannifihi Umar b. Amad al-ill awwala-llhu umrahu). Furthermore, one of ills students, asan Nreddn Suhrn, is reported to have been 40 years of age when he died in 1078/1667-8 (Muibb, Khulat al-athar, 2: 63f.) and thus must have been born around the year 1628 and must have been studying with ill in the 1640s. 61) The Maghrib scholar Abdullh al-Ayysh (d. 1680) wrote that he studied these two works with Ibrhm al-Krn in Medina, see his al-Rila al-ayyshiyya (Rabat: Dr alMaghrib, 1977 [reprint of lithograph edition of 1316/1898-9]), 1: 333f.
58) 59)

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

215

that attempted to adjudicate the points of disagreement between Ghazl and the Islamic Neo-Platonists.62 (iv) aydar usaynbd (d. 1717), active in the town of Mosul, who wrote glosses on the super-commentary of Muliuddn Lr on Hidyat al-ikma by Abhar, and on the super-commentaries of Mrz Jn Bghanv on ikmat al-ayn by Ktib and Rislat ithbt al-wjib by Dawwn.63 The role of 17th century Kurdish scholars in the teaching of philosophical, logical and semantic works is indeed noteworthy, and their reputation in these rational sciences survived into the 18th century. The Baghdadi scholar Abdullh al-Suwayd (d. 1761) wrote that in his student days he had gone to Mosul from his native Baghdad to study philosophy and astronomy (li-tasli ilmi-l-ikmati wal-haya),64 suggesting that the level of the study of these disciplines in that partly Kurdish town was higher than in his home town. One work that he studied there was Maybuds commentary on Abhars Hidyat al-ikma with the super-commentary of Muliuddn Lr.65 The Aleppine scholar Mamd al-Ank (d.1748) also reportedly went to Mosul from Aleppo to complete his study of logic and philosophy (al-maniq wa-l-ikma).66 A reported conversation that occurred between two Iraqi scholars in the late 18th or early 19th century is also revealing. Al al-Suwayd (d. 1822), one of the first scholars outside Najd to be touched by the teachings of the Wahhbs, reportedly complained to the prominent Naqshband mystic Khlid Shahrazr (d. 1827), himself of Kurdish origin, in the following words:

Muibb, Khulat al-athar, 4: 280f. Muradi, Silk al-durar, 2: 76f.; Mach, Catalogue, nrs. 2402, 3053, and 3079. 64) Abdullh al-Suwayd, al-Nafa al-miskiyya f al-rila al-makkiyya (MS: British Library: Add. 18518), fol. 5r. 65) Ibid, fol. 3b. 66) Muammad Rghib al-abbkh, Ilm al-nubal bi-trkh alab al-shahb (Aleppo: al-Mabaa al-Ilmiyya, 1923-6), 6: 528.
62) 63)

216

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

How bad is the practice of most Kurdish scholars in our day! They study philosophy and ignore the religious sciences such as tafsr and adth, by contrast to the practice of Arab scholars.

To this, Khlid is supposed to have replied:

Both groups are seeking lowly, worldly glory by their knowledge, and seeking this by means of saying The Prophet of God has said is worse than seeking it by means of saying Plato has said, Aristotle has said Yes, if they were seeking the hereafter, then indeed what most Arab scholars do would be praiseworthy.67

Conclusion The evidence suggests that the idea of a decline in interest in the rational sciences in the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century is a myth, nurtured by a few topical complaints about the decline of the times by contemporary scholars, and by a few dramatic events whose significance has been misunderstood, such as the rise of the zdeli movement and the demolition of the Ottoman observatory in 1580. There is abundant evidence to suggest that, on the contrary, the study of disciplines such as logic, dialectic, semantics, philosophy, rational theology, mathematics and astronomy continued unabated in the Ottoman Empire throughout the 17th century. There is even reason to believe that interest in these fields was on the rise, spurred on both by a dramatic rise in the number of educational institutions, and by the influx of works and scholars from Azerbaijan and Persia in the 16th and early 17th centuries. Appendix
In what follows, I list some of the main handbooks in logic, dialectic, physics and metaphysics which bio-bibliographic literature suggests were studied in the Ottoman Empire in the 17th and 18th centuries.

The exchange is reported by Mamd al-Als (d. 1854), a disciple of Khlid al-Naqshband, in his Gharib al-ightirb (Baghdd: Mabaat al-Shahbandar, 1327/1909-10), 91.
67)

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

217

Logic The study of logic was well-established in Ottoman scholarly circles, and biobibliographic evidence suggests a veritable explosion in the quantity of Ottoman logical writings in the 17th and 18th centuries. The main focus of study seems to have been the following handbooks: (i) sghj by Athruddn al-Abhar (d. 1265), an elementary introduction to logic, often studied with the commentary of usmuddn Kt (d. 1359) and the more demanding commentary of Memed Fenr (d.1431). The latter commentary in particular became the subject of a number of super-commentaries: by l Amed (d. ca. 1543) and later by ara Khall (d. 1711), Amed ev (d. 1808) and Abdullh Kanir (d. 1828).68 In the 17th and 18th centuries, a number of new commentaries on sghj also made an appearance: by Muaf Mostar (d. 1707), Isml Gelenbev (d. 1791), Mamd Manisv (d. 1808), Amed Rd Kara-aac (d. 1835), and mer Feyz Tokad (d. 1848).69 (ii) Tahdhb al-maniq by Saduddn Taftzn (d. 1390). This condensed work, more advanced than Abhars sghj, was also widely studied. Judging from the number of super-commentaries, the by far most popular commentary on the work was by the Persian philosopher Jalluddn Dawwn (d. 1501). His incomplete commentary, along with the super-commentary by Mr Ab l-Fat usayn (d. 1568), invited a host of often lengthy super-commentaries by Ottoman scholars in the 17th and 18th centuries: for example by ara Khall (d. 1711), Isml Gelenbev (d. 1791) and Abdullh Kanir (d. 1828).70 (iii) al-Risla al-shamsiyya by Najmuddn Ktib (d. 1277). In the 17th century, at least two Ottoman commentaries on this classic handbook on logic were written, by Allmek Memed Bosnav (d. 1636) and Muaf Mostar (d.

ara Khall, shiya al shar al-fanr (Istanbul: Mabaa-yi mire, 1279/1862-3); Amed evk, shiya al shar al-fanr (Istanbul: Mabaat al-Hajj Muharram al-Bosnawi, 1309/1891-2); Abdullh Kanir, shiya al shar al-fanr (Istanbul: Mabaa-yi mire, 1313/1895-6). 69) Muafa Mostar, Shar sghj (Istanbul: Mabaa-yi mire, 1316/1898); Isml Gelenbev, Shar sghj (Istanbul: irket-i efiyye-yi Osmniyye, 1306/1888-9); Mamd Manisv, Shar sghj (Istanbul: irket-i efiyye-yi Osmniyye, 1319/1901-2); Amed Rd Kara-aac, Tufat al-rushd al-qaraghaj al matn sghj (Istanbul: Mabaa-yi mire, 1279/1862-3); mer Feyz Tokad, al-Durr al-nj al matn sghj (Istanbul: Mabaa-yi mire, 1302/1884-5). 70) Mach, Catalogue, nrs. 3238, 3241, 3242.
68)

218

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

1707).71 An older commentary on the work, by Qubuddn Rz (d. 1365), also elicited a number of Ottoman super-commentaries in the 17th and 18th centuries, of which the mammoth super-commentary of Muftzde Memed di Erzincan (d. 1808) was printed in the 19th century in 2 volumes totaling 765 pages.72 In the 18th century, a number of new handbooks written by Ottoman scholars appeared. Dvd r (fl. 1740s) wrote al-sghj al-jadd and Takmilat altahdhb, somewhat expanded versions of Abhars sghj and Taftzns Tahdhb.73 rs contemporary Ab Sad Khdim (d. 1762) also wrote a new handbook on logic entitled Aris al-anr and an epitome of it entitled Nafis al-aris.74 The perhaps most successful of the new 18th-century handbooks was al-Burhn f ilm al-mzn by Isml Gelenbev (d. 1791), which elicited a number of commentaries by 19th century Ottoman scholars including a twovolume commentary in Ottoman Turkish by Abdnnfi ffet Efend (d. 1890).75 Dialectic Even more dramatic than the rise of interest in logic was the veritable explosion of interest in dialectic, or db al-bath. As in the case of logic, the discipline was not new, and had received some attention in Ottoman scholarly circles in the 15th and 16th centuries. However, the works on the discipline seem to have become both more numerous and lengthier in the period subsequent to the death of the bibliographer Ktib eleb (d. 1657). The main handbooks used in the field were as follows: (i) al-Risla f db al-bath by Shamsuddn Samarqand (fl. 1291), usually studied with the commentary of Mesd irvn (d. 1499). This was stated by Ktib eleb to be the major handbook in the field.76 However, it seems
Allmek Memed Bosnav, Shar al-shamsiyya (MS: Suleymaniye: Laleli 2658 & Laleli 2661); Muafa Mostar, Shar al-shamsiyya (MS: Suleymaniye: Laleli 2662), see also Mach, Catalogue, nr. 3219. 72) By Mabaa-yi mire, 1254/1838-9 and irket-i efiyye-yi Osmniyye, 1308/18901. 73) P. Hitti et al. Descriptive Catalog of the Garrett Collection of Arabic Manuscripts in the Princeton University Library (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1938), nr. 827 [Qris misread as Fris]; Mach, Catalogue, nr. 3254. 74) Mach, Catalogue, nrs. 3293, 3294. 75) Abdnnfi ffet Efend, Fenn-i Mani: Mizn-i erh-i Mtercim-i Burhn (Istanbul: Mabaa-yi mire, 1295/1878; reprinted in 1297/1879-80 and 1304/1886-7). 76) Ktib eleb, Kashf al-unn an asm al-kutub wa-l-funn (Istanbul: Maarif Mabaas, 1941-3), 1: 207.
71)

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

219

to have elicited very few super-commentaries in the course of the 17th and 18th centuries, and this suggests that it was gradually supplanted in popularity by other works. (ii) al-Risla f db al-bath by Amed Takprzde (d. 1560). This elementary handbook, with the commentary of Takprzde himself, elicited supercommentaries by ara Khall Trev (d. 1711), Isml a Bursev (d. 1724), Ab l-Sud al-Kawkib (d. 1725), and Ms Nidev (d. 1729).77 (iii) al-Risla f db al-bath by Memed Birgev (d. 1574). This one-page summary of the discipline invited commentaries from Veliyddn Crullh Efend (d. 1738) and Amed zabd (d. 1750).78 (iv) al-Risla f db al-bath by Aududdn j (d. 1355). This seems to have been the most popular handbook in Ottoman circles in the late 17th and 18th centuries. It was usually studied with the commentary of Mull anaf Tabrz (fl. 1516) and the rather demanding super-commentary of Mr Ab l-Fat usayn (d. 1568). This work elicited a number of often lengthy glosses, for example by the Grand Mufti of the Ottoman Empire Yay Minrzde (d. 1677), Memed Kefev (d. 1754), and Isml Gelenbev (d. 1791).79 Gelenbevs super-commentary was printed in Istanbul in 1234/1818-9, and at 609 pages may be one of the longest works on dialectic ever written in Arabic. As in logic, the 17th and 18th centuries saw the emergence of new handbooks on the discipline by Ottoman scholars. Three of the most popular of these seem to have been: (i) An untitled handbook, usually known as al-usayniyya and attributed to either Huseyn h Amsyav (fl.1512) or Huseyn h Ank (d. 1718). This work, along with the authors own commentary, elicited numerous supercommentaries, for example by Al Ferd ayer (d. 1715), Memed Drendev (d. 1739), and Muftzde Memed di Erzincan (d. 1808).80

Mach, Catalogue, nrs. 3374, 3375, 3376, 3378. Isml Ha Bursevs glosses were printed in Istanbul in 1273/1856-7 by ac Al Reza Mabaas. 78) Mach, Catalogue, nrs. 3386, 3387. 79) Mach, Catalogue, nrs. 3352, 3351 [author mistakenly dated to 16th century], 3361. Isml Gelenbev, shiya al shiyat Mr Ab l-Fat al shar al-db al-audiyya (Istanbul: Mabaa-yi mire, 1234/1818-9). 80) Mach, Catalogue, nrs. 3392, 3393, 3394, 3396, 3397. The super-commentary of Memed Sdi Muftzde Erzincan was printed by irket-i efiyye-yi Osmniyye in 1307/ 1889-90.
77)

220

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

(ii) Tarr al-qawnn al-mutadwala f ilm al-munara by Memed Saklzde (d. 1732-3). Saklzde also wrote an epitome of the work for the benefit of his son, and hence known as al-Risla al-waladiyya, which quickly seems to have become a standard introductory handbook in the field. It elicited a host of commentaries, by scholars such as Hseyin Mara (fl. 1762), Khall Avirn (d.1809) and Abdulwahhb mid (d. 1776), the latter of which was printed on several occasions in the 19th and early 20th centuries.81 (iii) Risla f db al-bath by Isml Gelenbev (d. 1791). This work elicited a commentary by Gelenbevs student Memed Sad asanpaazde (d. 1776) that was printed repeatedly in Istanbul in the 19th century.82 Physics and Metaphysics Two handbooks on philosophy that were widely studied in Ottoman circles in the 17th and 18th centuries have already been mentioned: (i) Hidyat al-ikma by Athruddn al-Abhar (d. 1265), along with the commentary of Q Mr usayn Maybud (d. 1504). Though Abhars Hidyat initially consisted of three parts, on logic, physics and metaphysics respectively, the part on logic had already fallen into disuse by the 15th century and was not commented upon by Maybud. The work was usually studied with the super-commentary of Muliuddn Lr (d. 1579), who was a student of Ghiythuddn Manr Dashtak (d. 1542) and was often critical of Maybud (who was a student of Dashtaks rival Jalluddn Dawwn [d.1501]). The commentary and super-commentary elicited a number of often very extensive glosses from Ottoman scholars, such as Zaynulbidn Grn (dedicated to Sultan Memed IV [r. 1648-1687]), ara Khall Trev (d. 1711), aydar usaynbd (d. 1717), Memed Kefev (d. 1754), and Isml Gelenbev (d. 1791).83

Mach, Catalogue, nrs. 3407, 3403, 3404. Abd al-Wahhb al-mid, Shar al-waladiyya (Istanbul: Mabaa-yi mire, 1261/1845; Mabaa-yi mire 1274/1857-8; Mabaa-yi mire 1288/1871-2; Ysuf iy Mabaas 1325/1907-8; Cairo: al-Mabaa al-Azhariyya, 1331/1912-3). 82) Mach, Catalogue, nrs. 3413, 3414. Memed Sad asanpzde, Fat al-wahhb al rislat al-db (Istanbul: Mabaa-yi mire 1263/1846-7; Mabaa-yi mire 1274/18778; irket-i efiyye-yi Osmniyye 1310/1892-3). 83) ara Khall, shiya al shiyat al-Lr (Istanbul: Mabaa-yi mire, 1271/1855); Memed Kefev, shiya al shiyat al-Lr (Istanbul: irket-i efiyye-yi Osmniyye, 1309/1891-2); Isml Gelenbev, shiya al shiyat al-Lr (Istanbul: Mabaa-yi mire, 1270/1853-4). For the super-commentaries of al-Krn and usaynbd, see Mach, Catalogue, nrs. 3052, 3053.
81)

K. El-Rouayheb / Die Welt des Islams 48 (2008) 196-221

221

(iii) Rislat ithbt al-wjib al-qadma, a treatise proving the existence of a necessary existent by Jalluddn Dawwn (d. 1501), along with the commentary of Mull anaf Tabrz (fl. 1516). The work was often studied with the supercommentary of Mrz Jn abbullh Bghanv (d. 1586). As mentioned above, the commentary and super-commentary elicited extensive glosses from 17th and 18th century Ottoman scholars such as aydar usaynbd (d. 1717), Memed Tarss (d. 1732-3), Amed zabd (d. 1750), and Memed Kefev (d. 1754).84

84)

Mach, Catalogue, nrs. 2402, 2403, 2404 and 2406.