Ahmed&Filipovic 2004 the Sultan's Syllabus

Maisonneuve & Larose is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studia Islamica.

http://www.jstor.org

Maisonneuve & Larose

The Sultan's Syllabus: A Curriculum for the Ottoman Imperial medreses Prescribed in a fermn of Qnn I Sleymn, Dated 973 (1565) Author(s): Shahab Ahmed and Nenad Filipovic Source: Studia Islamica, No. 98/99 (2004), pp. 183-218Published by: Maisonneuve & LaroseStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20059215Accessed: 21-07-2015 19:49 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 129.64.99.141 on Tue, 21 Jul 2015 19:49:03 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Studia Isl?mica, 2004

The Sultans Syllabus: A Curriculum for the Ottoman Imperial

medreses prescribed in ^ferm?n of Q?n?ni I S?leym?n, dated 973 (1565)

Introduction

It is broadly recognized that the educational reforms carried out in the reign of the Ottoman Sultan Q?n?ni I S?leym?n (S?leym?n the

Magnificent, regnant 926-974/1520-1566), following upon those of his great-grandfather, Sultan F?tih II Mehemmed (Mehemmed the Con queror, regnant 848-850/1444-1446 and 855-886/1451-1481) in the previous century, had the effect of centralizing and systematizing edu cation in the Ottoman empire to a degree unprecedented not merely in

Ottoman, but probably in pre-modern Islamic history. The role of these and subsequent reforms in the progressive fashioning of the Hlmiyye

-

what is generally called the Ottoman "learned institution" ?

particularly their effects on the structure and organization of educational institu tions and on the social constitution and career paths of the scholarly class, has received some study.l One of the fundamental effects of these

1. See M. C. Baysun, "Osmanh devri medreseleri," in the entry "Mescid," IA; Ismail Hakki Uzun?arsili, Osmanh Devletinin Ilmiye Teskila?, Ankara: Turk

Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1965; Cahid Baltaci, XV-XVI Asirlar Osmanh Medreseleri: Teskil?t, Tarih, Istanbul: Irfan Matbaasi, 1976; the early twentieth

183


Shahab AHMED and Nenad FlLIPOVlC

imperial measures was the organization of medreses into a hierarchy.2

The s?htes (students) pursued courses of study moving up through the successive grades of medreses according to their abilities and were duly certified as they did so.3 The most successful made their way through

century essays of Muallim Cevdet, collected and edited by Erdogan Eriiz, Mek

tep ve Medrese, Istanbul: ?inar Yayinlan, 1978; Hiiseyin Atay, Osmanhlarda Yiiksek Din Egitimi : Medrese programlan, Icazetn?meler, Islahat hareketleri, Istanbul: Derg?h Yayinlan, 1983; Madeleine Zilfi, "The Ilmiye Registers and the Ottoman Medrese System Prior to the Tanzimat," in Jean-Louis Bacqu?

Grammont and Paul Dumont (eds.), Contributions ? l'histoire ?conomique et sociale de l'Empire ottoman, Leuven: ?ditions Peeters, 1983, 309-327; Mustafa

Bilge, Ilk Osmanh Medreseleri, Istanbul: Edebiyat Fakiiltesi Basimevi, 1984; R. C. Repp, The Mufti of Istanbul: A Study in the Development of the Ottoman Learned Hierarchy, London: Ithaca Press, 1986; Halil Inalcik, "The R?zn?mce

Registers of the Kadiasker of Rumeli as Preserved in the Istanbul M?fi?l?k Archives," Turcica 20 (1988), 251-275; Suraiya Faroqhi, "al Tim wa al-ulam?

'

wa al-daivlah: dir?sah fi al-us?l al-ijtim?'iyyah li-al-ulam?'fi al-dawlah al

'Uthm?niyyahfi al-nisf al-th?ni min al-qarn al-s?dis 'ashar, "

al-Ijtih?d4 (1989) 183-200; Madeleine Zilfi, "Sultan S?leym?n and the Ottoman Religious

Establishment," in Halil Inalcik and Cernai Kafadar (eds.), S?leym?n the Sec ond and His Time, Istanbul: The Isis Press, 1993, 109-120; Mefail Hizli, Bursa

Medreselerinde Egitim-Ogretim, Bursa: Esra Fak?lte Kitabevi, 1997; Hasan

Akg?nd?z, Kl?sik D?nem Osmanh Medrese Sistemi: Ama?, Yapi, Isleyis, Istan

bul: Ulusal Yayinlan, 1997; Gilles Veinstein, "Le mod?le Ottomane," in Nicole Grandin and Marc Gaborieau (eds.), Madrasa: La transmission du savoir dans le monde Musulman, Paris: ?ditions Arguments, 1997, 73-83; Ekmeleddin

Ihsanoglu, "Ottoman Educational and Scholarly-Scientific Institutions," in

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu (ed.) History of the Ottoman State, Society and Civiliza tion, Istanbul: IRCICA, 2002, 2:357-515; Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire 1300-1650: The Structure of Power, London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2002, 228

229. See also the instructive historiographical critique by Ekmeleddin

Ihsanoglu, "The Initial Stage of the Historiography of Ottoman Medreses

(1916-1965): The Era of Discovery and Construction," Archivum Ottoma nicum 18 (2000), 41-85. 2. On the hierarchy, see H. A .R. Gibb and Harold Bowen, Islamic Society and the West: A Study of the Impact of Western Civilization on Moslem Culture in the Near East, London: Oxford University Press, 1957, 1 .II: 144-145;

Uzun?arsih, Osmanh Devletinin Ilmiye Teskilati, 5-17; Baltaci, XV-XVI Asirlar Osmanh Medreseleri, 46-50; Zilfi, "The Ilmiye Registers," 314; Repp, The Mufti of Istanbul, 40-44; Ihsanoglu, "Ottoman Educational and Scho

larly-Scientific Institutions," 371-380.

3. See Izgi, Osmanh Medreselerinde I lim, 1:50-61.

184


The Sultan's Syllabus: A Curriculum for the Ottoman Imperial medreses

the hierarchy as students; and then either returned to the bottom to

begin their career as m?derri?n (teachers) and once again to work up through the ranks, or sought positions as entry-level judges (n?vmh) in the imperial legal system. "Incumbents of posts in the most senior medrese grades qualified for promotion... to one of the posts of the

Mahrec, the lowest of the Great Molla grades, and thence through the Great Molla hierarchy to the Kadiaskerates."

4 Those who were not suc cessful in pursuing a career in the 'ilmiyye might go to the qalemiyye (secretarial institution),5 or even return to civil life.6 In other words, the

Ottoman state was instrumental in the social formation and certifica

tion of a distinct class of men of religious learning who were integrated into the

non-military sector of the Ottoman state structure -

most pro

nouncedly in the imperial capital, Istanbul ? and whose influence was

thus felt in Ottoman society wherever people came into contact with the legal and administrative offices of empire. In sum: "The 'ilmiyye class as a whole was a privileged group whose status and hierarchy was based on the level of certified knowledge in the Islamic sciences. Its

members represented the spiritual authority [of the Ottoman state] side by side with the military-political authority."

7 "As architecture was the

material expression of Ottoman Islam, the ulema (s. alim), medrese trained scholar jurists, were its living embodiment."

8

But while it is evident that the Ottoman state found it important to determine the structures that certified who was learned, an impor tant question that remains relatively unconsidered is whether the state

had any interest in intervening to determine what it was that consti tuted learning in the Islamic sciences

? that is to say, to intervene in

4. Zilfi, "The Ilmiye Registers," 312. 5. The most famous example of a 16th century medrese graduate who entered

the qalemiyye is probably Mustafa 'Ali, on whom see the study by Cornell H. Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Histo

rian Mustafa ?li (1541-1600), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986, especially at 34-36. 6. For an

example of a 16th century medrese graduate who pursued a career in commerce rather than as a m?derris, judge, or bureaucrat, see the entry on one Mevl?n? 'At? in Seh? Beg, HestBihist: The Tezkire by Sein Beg, ed. Giinay

Kut, Cambridge: Harvard University, 1978, 273.

7. Inalcik, "The R?zn?mce Registers," 254. 8. Madeleine Zilfi, The Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in the Postclassi calAge (1600-1800), Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Isl?mica, 1988, 24.

185


Shahab AHMED and Nenad FlLlPOVlC

the content o? the education of the men who functioned as the "living

embodiment" of imperial Ottoman Islam. Did the Ottoman state seek to determine the curriculum of the medreses: in other words, did it seek to establish an imperial canon? If so, what was this canon, and

what might the specific constitution of the canon tell us about the nature of the Islam with which the Ottoman state wished to be iden tified - that is, about the official identity of Ottoman Islam? A further

question to be asked is: what, if anything, might this canon tell us about the historical development of Islamic scholarly traditions?

This paper aspires to take a very small and very incomplete step towards

answering these questions by examining a document whose

significance seems to have escaped the notice even of the scholars who

have cited it to date. Item number E/2803/1 in the Topkapi Sarayi Ar?ivi9 is a single sheet of paper bearing the title Med?ris-i

H?q?niyeye l?zim olub ferman-i P?dis?l%-ile M?derris Efenc&ler'e virilen kit?blarim bey?nidur

? "This is a list of the books required for

the imperial medreses, given to the M?derris Efenc?s [teachers] in accordance with the decree of the Padishah." Beneath this are listed in five rows the citations of thirty-nine books, and under each citation is a numeral almost certainly indicating the total number of volumes

comprising the work. The sum total of the volumes is given in the sixth row: yakunu jam'an 55 ("together, they are 55"). At the lower left-hand side is the date 973 (1565) ? that is, one year before the

death of Q?n?ni S?leym?n ?

and the Arabic phrase al-w?qV fi-hi, "issued in". The title of the document is self-explanatory: it is precisely an intervention on the part of the Ottoman state to prescribe the

books to be used in the imperial medreses ? in other words, to lay

down a medrese curriculum. in Indeed, TSA E/2803/1 constitutes the first known documentation in Islamic history of a move by the state

9. The authors should like to express their gratitude to ?lk? Altindag at the

Topkapi Sarayi Ar|ivi for graciously allowing us to transcribe TSA E/2803/1, and to Emine Fetvaci for her kind facilitation.

10. While TSA E/2803/1 is not itself a firman, there can be little doubt that it is a genuine extract from afirman

? it is highly implausible that a docu ment falsely claiming to be an extract from an imperial edict could be thus

preserved in the imperial archives. The existence of TSA E/2803/1 seems to

have first been noted by C?hid Baltaci, who cited the document in his biblio

graphy without, however, making apparent use of it in his study; seeXV-XVI

186



to establish a canon of religious learning. n Since we know that the

official legal rite of the Ottoman empire was the Hanafi madhhab, and that the favoured theological school was M?turidism, the question immediately arises as to whether this canon possesses a Hanafi

M?turidi identity ; and if so, what are the sources of Islamic scholar

ship that constitute that identity. n

The curriculum in question applies to a particular set of medreses, the med?ris-i H?q?niye or "imperial medreses? which is a term that seems not to have surfaced before now in the scholarship on the

ranking of the medreses. However, the most obvious use of the term

would be in reference to the medreses founded by the Sultans them selves. From the time of the construction by F?tih II Mehemmed of the

medrese complex attached to the F?tih mosque, the Sultans' medreses seem to have automatically occupied the highest academic ranks in the medrese hierarchy;13 this was also subsequently the case with regard to

Asirlar Osmanh Medreseleri, XIII. Mustafa Bilge transcribed the titles of twenty of the thirty-nine works, but without any exposition thereof; see Ilk Osmanh

Medreseleri, 63. Hasan Akg?nd?z, like Baltaci, cites the document in the

bibliography of his Kl?sik D?nem Osmanh Medrese Sistemi but does not make apparent use of it.

11. This does not, of course, exclude the possibility of there having been ear

lier state-prescribed curricula for which documentary evidence is not

presently available. Previous studies on curricula of learning in Islamic history have been based on evidence contained in ij?zahs (authorization by a teacher to a student to teach specified works on his authority), or in biographical and autobiographical notices; for an ij?zah-bzsed study of a curriculum from the 9th/15th century, see Maria Eva Subtelny and Anas Khalidov, "The Curricu

lum of Islamic Higher Learning in Timurid Iran in the Light of the Sunni Revival under Sh?h-Rukh," Journal of the American Oriental Society 115

(1995), 210-236. For reconstruction of Ottoman curricula from biographi cal and autobiographical notices, see below.

12. On Ottoman Hanafi-M?turidism, see Mustafa Said Yazicioglu, Le kal?m et son r?le dans la soci?t? turco-ottomane aux XV et XVIe si?cles, Ankara: Minis

t?re de la Culture, 1990, 105-116. 13. It is important to note that the Sultanic medrese complexes themselves

contained medreses of different ranks, with the lower ones servicing the

higher. Thus, the apex medreses of the F?tih complex were the "eight medreses

of the yard' - the Sahn-t ?em?n medreses

-

which were serviced by eight other

medreses called the M?sile-i Sahn ("leading to the yard"). However, even the lower Sultanic medreses stood at the upper grades of the medrese hierarchy.

187


Shahab AHMED and Nenad FiLlPOVIC

the medreses of the S?leym?niye complex, the construction of which was

completed in 964/1557 - that is, nine years before the promulga

tion of the curriculum under study here. H

Thus, the med?ris-i

H?q?r?ye are the medreses that stand at the very top of the hierarchy, and the curriculum prescribed in the present document represents the

highest course of study in the Ottoman educational system. 15

"The official rank of the medrese founders also played a role in medrese gra

ding. The more prominent the founder, the more likely his or her medrese

would be in the highest grades and offer instruction in the highest sciences...

Since the Dar?lhadis of Siileymaniye, the Siileymaniye, and the Sahn-i

Seman grades corresponded only to the original medreses that had given rise to those grades, they can be considered grades with unalterably "imperial"

standing. According to the registers, others of the highest grades were also vir

tually exclusive to medreses founded by the imperial family. Medreses built by the Sultans and the women of the dynasty dominate the Hamis and the

Miisile-i Siileymaniye, the third and fourth highest grades, although a few

nonimperial medreses share in both grades"; Zilfi, "The Ilmiye Registers," 315-16. Some sense of the scale of the imperial medreses may be obtained

from the fact that the sixteen F?tih medreses could lodge 312 students; Gibb

and Bowen, Islamic Society and the West, 1.11:145. As regards our present

knowledge of the medrese system, note the recent remark of Ekmeleddin

Ihsanoglu: "Because the establishment, formation and the changes experi enced over the centuries of this educational hierarchy have not been very

thoroughly studied, more detailed and multifaceted studies will be required in order to achieve greater clarity with regard to the subject"; "Ottoman Edu

cational and Scholarly-Scientific Institutions," 376. 14.

"Siileyman's own medreses, built around his mosque in Istanbul and

completed by 966/1559 [sic\], were to form the top rungs in the fully elabo rated hierarchy of medreses, though they seem not to have achieved exclusive

claim to this pre-eminence immediately;" Repp, The Miifiti of Istanbul, 44.

"In the late fifteenth century and for much of the sixteenth, the Eight Col

leges attached to the mosque of Mehmed II in Istanbul occupied the pinna cle of

religious and legal education in the Ottoman Empire. In the decades after the completion of the complex in 1557, the colleges attached to the

Siileymaniye mosque in Istanbul came to occupy the most prestigious posi tion;" Colin Imber, Ebus-su'ud: The Islamic Legal Tradition, Stanford: Stan ford University Press, 1997, 8. On the date of the completion of the Siiley

maniye complex, see Omer L. Barkan, Siileymaniye Cami ve Imareti Insaati

(1550-1557), Ankara: Turk Tarih Kururnu Basimevi, 1972, 1:58. 15. This will shortly be confirmed by the content of the curriculum itself.

188



Our current knowledge of which books were apparently taught in the Ottoman medreses has been culled piecemeal from a scattering of sources, such as works by Ottoman scholars on education and the Islamic sciences, scholarly biographies and autobiographies, ij?zahs, waqfiyyahs, and other documents. 16The present state of our knowledge

is, however, unsatisfactory on several counts. First, it is not clear that

any of the lists of books that have been compiled so far constitutes a

complete course of study, even for a single level of the medrese system. 17

16. The fullest study of Ottoman medrese curricula available is the important work of Cevat Izgi, Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim 1. Ci It: Riyaz? Ilimier 2. Cilt: Tabi? Ilimler, Istanbul: Iz Yayincihk, 1997. In the introductory survey to his book (which is concerned primarily with the Ottoman study of the natural sciences and mathematics) Izgi compiled fourteen lists of books, each from a

separate source, and presented each list under the title "Ottoman medrese

curriculum [Osmanh Medreseleri M?fredat Programi]"; see Osmanh Medreselerinde I lim, 1:61-183. Izgi s lists build on the earlier compilations of

Uzun?arsih, Osmanh Devletinin Ilmiye Teskilatt, 20-31; Baltaci, XV-XVI Asirlar Osmanh Medreseleri, 37-43; and Bilge, Ilk Osmanh Medreseleri, 40-63. For the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, see ?mer ?zyilmaz,

Manzume-i Tertib-i Ul?m, Tertibu'l Ulum, Kaside Fi'1-K?t?b'l Mesb?re Fi'l Ul?m, Kevakib-i Seb'a ve Erzurumlu Ibrahim Hakkt 'ntn Tertib-i Ul?m Isimli G?re, XVII ve XVIII. Y?zyillarda Osmanh Medreselerinin Egitim Programlari, Ankara: T.C. K?lt?r Bakanligi, 2002. See also subsection "Dersler, Konular ve Medrese Dereceleri," from Mehmet Ipsjrli, "Osmanh D?nemi," in the

entry on "Medrese," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 28:328-330.

17. For example, Izgi cites two "Ottoman medrese curricula" from the auto

biographical testimony of Ta?k?priz?de (d.968/156l), one consisting of books that Ta?k?priz?de records himself to have studied, and the second of books that Ta?k?priz?de records himself to have taught. Now, according to

his own testimony, Ta?k?priz?de taught three works dtfiqh, however, no fiqh works appear in his curriculum of study. Since it makes no sense for

Ta?k?priz?de to have taught a subject he had not studied, this means that the first curriculum is necessarily incomplete (so too is the brief second curricu lum - which is brief presumably because Ta?k?priz?de simply did not teach every book on the medrese curriculum); for the curricula from Ta?k?priz?de, see Osmanh MedreselerindeI lim, 1:97-99, 170 (Cetvel 5), and 171 (Cetvel6). Similarly, in his Kashf al-zun?n, H?jji Khalifah K?tib ?eleb? (d. 1067/1657) describes the Talmh of Sad al-DIn al-Taft?z?ni (for which see item 36 in the annotated list, below) as a work "sought after by every student in the field;" see Kashf al-zun?n 'an as?mi al-kutub wa al-fun?n, ed. ?erefettin Yaltkaya and Kilisli Rifat Bilge, Istanbul: Maarif Matbaasi, 1941-43, 496. However, the Talwih does not appear in either of the two "Ottoman medrese curricula"

189


Shahab Ahmed and Nenad FlLIPOVlC

Second, sometimes the historical source from which particular works have been adduced to have been a part of the medrese curriculum does not itself indicate that the work in question was actually studied within a medrese, as opposed to in private settings where teaching and learning continued beyond the medrese curriculum.

18 The data compiled to date,

compiled by Izgi from H?jj? Khal?fah's autobiographical excursus in his Miz?nu l-haqq; see Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:100-101, 173 (Cetvel 8),

and 174 (Cetvel 9). The fullest curriculum in Izgi is that taken from the Kev?kib-i seb'a, an anonymous work authored in 1155/1741 in response to

an inquiry by the French ambassador to the High Porte about the character

of Ottoman education. However, the list of books in the Kev?kib-i seb'a is

clearly weighted towards subjects taught at the lower levels of the medrese cur riculum (such as grammar, syntax and logic), which are more fully repre sented there than higher subjects (such as Quranic exegesis, hadith and law);

Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:69-77, 163-167 (Cetvel 1); also see ?zyilmaz, XVII ve XVIII. Y?zytllarda Osmanh Medreselerininde Egitim Programlart, 37

42. For the hierarchy of subjects in the medrese education, see below. Izgi does not cite the present firman. 18. For example, Izgi's Cetvel 9 {Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:173) is an "Ottoman medrese curriculum" made of books that H?jj? Khalifah mentions himself to have taught: while there is no reason to doubt that H?jj? Khal?fah

taught these works, he was not, in fact, a teacher in medrese? therefore, pre

sumably he taught them outside a medrese curriculum. Similarly, on the basis

of the testimony in the autobiography of Seyyid Feyzull?h Efend? (1639 1703), Izgi adduces about nine books as comprising an "Ottoman medrese

curriculum;" see Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:174-175, (Cetvel 10). However, Feyzull?h Efend? does not actually say that he studied these works

in a medrese, but rather that he studied eight of them with either his father, uncle or cousins, something he was at least as likely to do in a domestic set

ting as in a medrese, see Ahmet Tiirek and F. ?etin Derin, "Feyzull?h Efendi'nin Kendi Kaleminden Hal Terciimesi," Istanbul ?niversitesi Edebiyat Fak?ltesi Tarih Dergisi 23 (1969), 204-218, at 206-207. Ish?q al-Toqad?

(d. 1100/1689), from whose Nazmu l-ul?m Izgi derives another "Ottoman medrese curriculum," also does not indicate that the works he lists were actu

ally studied in the medrese -

presumably some of them were, but which

exactly we do not know; see Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:167, (Cetvel 2); also ?zyilmaz, XVII ve XVIII. Y?zytllarda Osmanh Medreselerinin Egitim Programlart, 21-26. In any case, the Nazmu I-ulum is more a scholar's

desideratum of what should be studied than a record of what necessarily was

studied (see Ish?q b. Hasan al-Toqadi, Nazmu l-ul?m, published in ?emsiid din Siv?si, Men?qib-i Im?m-i A'zam, Istanbul: Tevfiq Efendi'nin Matbaasi

1291/1874); this would also seem to be the case with the Tertib-i 'ulum of

190



while valuable, is thus somewhat disjointed and must be treated with a degree of circumspection. Indeed, our knowledge of what was studied in the medreses is sufficiently limited to have provoked the recent remark that "it is not possible to determine the curricula of the Ottoman

medreses in a clear and detailed manner." 19 Nonetheless, we do have a

good sense of the general oudine of the medrese program of study:

The highest sciences - the traditions of the Prophet {hadis), Koranic

commentary (tefiir), and Islamic jurisprudence (fikth) - were studied in medreses in the highest grades. The more elementary disciplines, those of an instrumental nature - Arabic grammar (sarf) and syntax (nahv)

? were

relegated to medreses in the lower grades. In practice, the curricula of even

the lowest grades included a smattering of the "highest sciences" for

instructional purposes. On the whole, however, the highest sciences as

disciplines fell within the purview of the ...

superior grades.20

A description of medrese education from 1155/1741 indicates fur ther that logic (mantiq) was also taught at the beginning of the course of study, while disputation (?d?b-i hah s), preaching (va'az), rhetoric (bel?gai), tenets of faith (aq??d), philosophy (hikmei) and theology (kel?m) were taught at an intermediate stage.21 However, it should be stressed that students at the lower rungs were exposed in some degree to higher subjects as well; thus, the lowest-ranking medreses in the

medrese hierarchy laid out by F?tih II Mehemmed (those in which

Eryzir?mh Ibrahim Haqq? (d. 1194/1780), which is the primary subject of ?zyilmaz s study. The (?aside fi-'l-kutub-i me?h?re fi-'l-ul?m of Neb?efen diz?de (d. 1200/1785) is, in turn, not a medrese curriculum but rather, as its title suggests, a list of important books in each discipline, some of which at various times were presumably taught in medreses, see Izgi, Osmanh

Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:93-97, and 169 (Cetvel 4); also ?zyilmaz, XVII ve XVIII. Y?zytllarda Osmanh Medreselerinin Egitim Programlart, 30-37. Nor is there any indication that the anonymous 11th/17th century %lim from

whose testimony Izgi compiled Cetvel 7 studied all the books in that list in a medrese; see Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim, 1:99-100, and 172.

19. Ihsanoglu, "Ottoman Educational and Scholarly-Scientific Institutions," 383. 20. Zilfi, "The Ilmiye Registers," 315. 21. This is the above-mentioned Kev?kib-i seb'a; see Ihsanoglu, "Ottoman

Educational and Scholarly-Scientific Institutions," 384 (where ?d?b-i bahi is erroneously translated as "elocution").

191


Shahab AHMED and Nenad FlLIPOViC

teachers were paid 20 to 25 aq?es a day) were called H?siye-i Tec?d medreses21 after the commentary by al-Sharif al-Jurj?n? (d.816/1414) on the theology primer entitled Taj?d al-kal?m by N?sir ai-Din al T?si (d.678/1274),23 while the intermediate 40 aq?e medreses were known as Telvih medreses after the work on jurisprudence [us?l al

fiqh) by Sa'd al-Din al-Taft?z?ni (d.791/1389), entitled al-Talwih fi kashf haq? 'iq al-Tanqih.

24 However, as students moved up the grades,

preparatory subjects, such as grammar and logic,25 were abandoned as

having now been mastered, and higher subjects ? with which students

had thus far only received some degree of familiarization ? now

became the focus of more in-depth study.26 TSA E/2803/1 is thus a most fortuitous document as it provides

for us precisely what has not been available thus far in our knowledge of Ottoman history: a clear and detailed syllabus of what was studied at a particular level of the medrese hierarchy

? in this case, the highest level - at the instigation of the Ottoman state. The date of the docu

ment, 973/1565, corresponds to the final period of the educational reforms carried out by S?leym?n and his ?eyhulisl?m Eb? s-Suc?d (in office, 952-982/1545-74).

22. In the reign of F?tih II Mehemmed, the medreses v/eve organized accord

ing to the teachers' salaries as 20 (H??iye-i Tecrid), 30 {Mifi?h), 40 (Harte), 50 (Da h tl, Tetimme, M?s ile-i Sahn, Sah n-i Sema ri) and eventually, in S?ley

m?n's reign, 60 aq?e medreses. As a teacher was promoted to a medrese where more advanced material was taught, his salary increased. The highest salaries were paid in the Sultanic medreses, where the highest courses of study were

taught. See Baltaci, XV-XVI Astrlar Osmanh Medreseleri, 36-43; and

Ihsanoglu, "Ottoman Educational and Scholarly-Scientific Institutions," 376-377. 23. See Uzun?arsili, Osmanh Devletinin Ilmiye Teskilatt, Uzun?arsih, 10, 25;

Baltaci, XV-XVI Astrlar Osmanh Medreseleri, 37; Bilge, Ilk Osmanh Medreseleri, 54; and H?jj? Khal?fah, Kashf al-zun?n, 346-351.

24. See Uzun?arsih, Osmanh Devletinin Ilmiye Teskilati, 10, 28; Baltaci, XV XVI Astrlar Osmanh Medreseleri, 38-39. On this work, see below.

25. Thirty aq?e medreses were also called Mifi?h medreses after the Mifi?h al

ul?m by Y?suf al-Sakk?k? (d.626/1229), a work on morphology (sarfi, grammar (nahtv) and rhetoric (bal?ghah); see Ihsanoglu, "Ottoman Educa tional and Scholarly-Scientific Institutions," 377.

26. This is reflected in the lists of books studied at the different levels com

piled by Baltaci, XV-XVI Astrlar Osmanh Medreseleri, 36-43.

192


The Sultans Syllabus: A Curriculum for the Ottoman Imperial medreses

S?leymans religious policies in their totality brought about the

expansion, reorganization, integration and enhancement of the personnel and judgements of the ulema in state service... it was chiefly the institu tions

affecting the training and functions of the ulema that attracted

S?leymans sustained involvement. And too, it was largely on the ulemas

representation of religiosity and rectitude that S?leymans religious poli cies were founded... S?leymans policies had at least three aims: to

expand the physical capacity of the educational system, to ensure the

quality of Hlmiyye personnel, and to provide opportunities for more

sophisticated scholarly inquiry. The three would raise the educational and

intellectual resources of the empire to the levels demanded by the

empires new size and might... Kadis were, of course, the backbone of the

empires legal system. The ability of the legal system to deliver on its manifold potential depended in large part on the quality of the medrese

system... [the] overriding concerns [of the reforms] was to produce a sys tem that was, within the frame of royal prerogative, orderly, incorruptible and merit-driven.27

The central role in the educational reforms was played by the office of the ?eyhulisl?m Eb? s-Su'?d who held the post of ?eyhulis l?m for the last twenty years of S?leymans reign, and who was not

only the most respected religious authority in the empire, but was

unusually close to the Sultan to whom he was an informal spiritual adviser. This unusual personal relationship between Sultan and ?ey hulisl?m ? the two pivotal figures in the educational reform project ? doubtless contributed significantly to the successful implementa tion of the reforms. 28The immediate impetus for the states concern

27. Zilfi, "Sultan S?leym?n and the Ottoman Religious Establishment," 110-113.

28. On the "unprecedentedscale" of Eb? s-Su'?ds involvement in state poli

cies, see Zilfi, "Sultan S?leym?n and the Ottoman Religious Establishment," 116-118. On the relationship between Eb? s-Su'?d and S?leym?n, see the remarkably intimate terms of address

-

"my companion in the mystic state,

my friend in my bosom, my comrade on the path of truth, my brother in the

afterlife [h?lde haldas um sinemde ?ndasum ta?q-i haqqda yoldasum ?hiret qartndasum]" - used by S?leym?n in his correspondence with Eb? s-Su?d preserved in Mecm?'a-i MehmedMey? G?r?m b. Lsm?il Bosnevi, MS Sara

jevo, Gazi Husrev Beg, I 2012, 74b (we are grateful to Snjezana Buzov for

obtaining a copy of this manuscript for us). See also Imber, Ebu's -

su'ud, 8

20. For a telling example of close cooperation between the Sultan and his

?eyhulisl?m in a scholarly cause, see the imperial order dated 17th Rajab

193


Shahab AHMED and Nenad FlLlPOViC

with educational reform was likely provided, at least in part, by the

rumblings of protest from medrese graduates ? the potential repre

sentatives of the empire

? that owing to nepotism and

a shortage of

positions they were unable to obtain the appointments they thought they deserved.

29 The destabilizing potential of these grievances is seen in the student riots of 966-67/1558-59, and then in a reasser tion of unrest in 973/1565 ? the year of the issue of our fierm?n.

30

One important measure in this state project was the setting up of the m?l?zemet institution which aimed at systematizing appoint

ments and promotion according to the scholarly merit and seniority of the candidate. 31 Eb? s-Su'?d's famous defence of the legitimacy of the czsh-waqf in his polemics with Birgili Mehemmed

(d.981/1573) also served to reinforce the 'ilmiyye by assuring the continuity of one of the most important financial bases of the insti tutions that not only provided education, but also appointments for

medrese graduates in medreses and mosques. 32 It is in the light of this

972/1565 summoning a certain 'ahm by the name of Bedr?dd?n, who was a

teacher in a medresein Rhodes, to come to Istanbul and serve as research assis

tant to Eb? s-Su'?d to help the ?eyhulisl?m complete the Quran commen

tary on which he had been working; Ahmet Refik, On alttnct astrda Rafizilik ve Bektasilik, Istanbul: Muallim Ahmet Halit Kitaphanesi, 1932, 20 (Docu

ment 15). (The work in question, the well-known Irsh?dal-'aqlal-sa&m, was

duly completed within a few months, shortly before the Sultan's death). 29. On medrese graduates' complaints of corruption, see Edith G?lcin

Ambros, "The Let?'if of Faqiri, Ottoman poet of the 16th century," Wiener

Zeitschrift f?r die Kunde des Morgenlandes80 (1990), 59-78, at 64-65. 30. On the student riots of 966-67/1558-59 and 973/1565, see Ahmet Refik, On alttnct astrda Rafizilik ve Bektasilik, 13-14 (Document 2), 14-15 (Docu ment 4), 15-16 (Document 6), 17 (Document 8), 19 (Document 14). On the broader phenomenon of student unrest in the I6rh century Ottoman empire, see

M. Akdag, "T?rkiye Tarihinde i?tima? Buhranlar Serisenden: Medreseli Isyan lan," Istanbul ?niversitesi Iktisat Fak?ltesi Mecmuast 11/1-4 (1949), 361-87.

31. On the role of Eb? s-Su'?d in the establishment of the m?l?zemet system, see Inalcik, "The R?zn?mce Registers," 257-261; Baltaci, XV-XVI Astrlar

Osmanh Medreseleri, 34-35, Repp, The Miifii of Istanbul 51-55. 32. See the declaration of Eb? s-Su'?d's supporter, Bali Efend?, on how "certain

schools and most of the mosques ... are based on the cash-waqf" and that if the

cash-waqfs "were lost ... the preacher and the prayer-caller would be lost;" Jon E.

Mandaville, "Usurious Piety: The Cash Waqf Controversy in the Ottoman

Empire," International Journal of Middle East Studies, 10 (1979), 289-308, at 303.

194



larger project on the part of the Ottoman state ? in the form of the

Sultan and ?eyhulisl?m - to

regularize and systematize the 'ilmiyye that the decision to lay out a clearly-stated curriculum of study for the medreses (reflected in TSA E/2803/1) should be seen. S?leymans concern with medrese education standards is evidenced as early as

945/1539 in the form of a ferm?n that expresses the Sultans dissat isfaction with the fact that the s?htes in the medreses "read only one

book from each discipline, and of each book only a few chapters." The ferm?n stipulates that the s?htes must read entire books, that

they must be certified accordingly by their teachers (m?derrisden temess?k aluh), and that the state will then make appointments based on this certification. 33 Given the concern for regularization and certification, it is only logical to assume that curricula must have been prescribed at this time not only for the med?ris-i

IJ?q?niye, but also for the lower and intermediate levels of the medrese system; however, there is as yet no documentary evidence of

this. The curricula were presumably drafted by the S/iw-bureaucrats of the department of the ?eyhulisl?m who were themselves medrese

graduates, subsequently approved by the ?ieyhulisl?m himself, and then taken on to the Sultan to be issued, like other parts of the edu cational reforms, in the form of imperial ferm?ns

? that is, as

binding Sultanic law - in the present case issued one year before

Q?n?ni S?leymans death.

The list of books from the ferman

We now turn to the list of books from ?ie ferm?n. In what follows, the original citations as they appear in the document are transcribed and annotated. As will be seen, the citations are extremely brief, indi

cating that there is an assumption that the audience of the list is

already familiar with the works in question. The annotations will

identify the title of the work, the subject matter, the name of the author, his dates, his legal or theological affiliation (as relevant), as

33. See Tayyib G?kbilgin, "K?nuni Sultan S?leym?n devri m?esseseler ve te?kil?tina i?ik tutan Bursa ?er'iye sicillerinden ?rnekler," in Ismail Hakkt

Uzun?arsih'ya Armagan, Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1976, 91

113. The text of the ferm?n in question is given at 96-99, see especially 97.

195


Shahab AHMED and Nenad FlLlPOVIC

well as to gauge the continuing circulation of the work as indicated by the extent of its survival in

manuscript and print. The annotations are

broadly aimed at providing basic information salient to answering the

question of the identity of the Islam that the Ottoman state wished the men of the religious institution to embody.

34

1. Ke?s?f. [1]. 35 This is al-Kashsh?f an haq? 'iq al-tan?l wa uy?n

al-aq?idl fi haqq al-taidl, the Quran commentary of Abu al-Q?sim Jar Allah Mahmud b. 'Umar al-Zamakhshari (d. 538/1142), the famous Hanafi Mu'tazil? from Khw?razm.

36

2. Qutbu d-D?n. [1]. This is the commentary on the Kashsh?foi al-Zamakhshari by Qutb al-Din Mahmud b. Mas'?d al-Sh?r?z? (d.710/1311), a polymath astronomer and prolific scholar who was a Sh?fi'i by jurisprudential school, and an Ashari by theological affilia tion. He spent parts of his career in Sivas, Malatya and Tabriz.37

34. Any reader discouraged at the prospect of reading through an annotated

list of thirty-nine books may repair directly to the "Analysis and Conclusions"

that follow.

35. The original citation is transcribed in bold italics. The numeral that then

follows in bold between square brackets is that which, in the original, is writ

ten under the citation indicating the number of volumes that comprise the

work. To reflect the way in which the work would presumably have been

referred to by the scholars of the 'ilmiyye themselves, we have transliterated

the citation to reflect the Ottoman pronunciation of the title.

36. For a concise sketch of al-Zamakhshari, see Jane D?mmen McAuliffe,

Quranic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 49-54; for a fuller study, Ismail Cerra

hoglu, "Zamah?eri ve tefsiri," Ankara Universitesi Ilahiyat Fak?ltesi DergisilG (1983) 59-96; and see also Ali ?zek, "el-Ke??af," TDVIslam Ansiklopedisi, 25:329-330. The Kashsh?fhas been printed several times, beginning with the Calcutta lithograph of 1859, and the Cairo edition published by Matba'at Muhammad Mustafa in 1891. For a sense of the prodigious circulation of

the work in the pre-modern period, see the list of extant manuscripts in al

Majma' al-Maliki li-Buh?th al-Had?rah al-Isl?miyyah, Mu'assasat ?l al

Bayt, al-Fihris alsh? mil li-al-tur?th al-arabi al-isl?mi al-makht?t: ul?m al

quran, makht?t?t al-tafur wa ul?mu-hu, Amman: Mu'assasat AI al-Bayt, 1989, 155-188 (hereafter, M?B, al-Tafsir).

37. Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1943, S.I:296-297; 'Umar Rid? Kahh?lah, Mujam al-muallifin, Beirut: Mu assasat al-Ris?lah, n.d., 3:832; E.Wiedermann, "Kutb al-D?n al

196



3. Sa'du d-Din. [1]. This is the super-commentary composed by Sa'd ai-Din Mas'?d b. 'Umar al-Taft?z?n? (d.791/1389) on the com

mentary authored by Sharaf al-D?n ai-Tib? (d.743/1343 ; see item 6, below) on the Kashsh?foi al-Zamakhshari. Al-Taft?z?ni was a Hanafi

Ashari by madhhab and a prodigious author and commentator other works of whom were also used in the Ottoman curricula. He did not

complete the present super-commentary, reaching only as far as S?rat

al-Faih 4. C?r?perdi. [1]. This is the commentary on the Kashsh?foi ?

Zamakhshar? by Fakhr al-D?n Ahmad b. Hasan al-Ch?r?pardi/ J?r?bard? (d.746/1346), a Sh?fi'i student of al-Bayd?w? (d.716/1315 ; see item 5, below) who spent much of his career in Tabriz.39

5. Q?di Beyziw?. [1]. This is the Quran commentary by N?sir al D?n Abd Allah b. cUmar al-Sh?fi'i al-Bayd?wi (d.716/1315), entitled Anwar al-tan?l wa asr?r al-ta'wil. This is effectively "a condensed and amended edition of al-Zamakhshar? s Kashsh?f" in which al-Bayd?wi

Sh?r?z?," EI2; Ali ?erbetci, "Kutbudd?n-i ??r?z?," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 26:487-489. For extant manuscripts of the work, see M?B, al-Ta?r, 352

353. This book should not be confused with the work on logic by Qutb al D?n al-Taht?n? (d.766/1365) entided Tahrir al-dq?'id al-mantiqiyyah fi shark al-Shamsiyyah which was studied at the primary level of medrese educa

tion, and also customarily cited as "Qutbu d-Din;" for the fact of this latter work having been studied, see Izgi, Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim 164, 168-70,

172, 176 -

note, however, that Izgi incorrectly gives the author of the Tah?r

al-'aq?'idzs al-Qutb al-Sh?r?z?. 38. Kahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin, 3:849; '?dil Nuwayhid, Mu jam al mufiassirin min sadr al-isl?m il? al-asr al-h?dir, Beirut: Mu'assasat Nuway hid ai-Thaq?fiyyah, 1983, 670; W. Made?ung, "Al-Taft?z?n?," EI2. For extant

manuscripts of the work, see M?B, al-Ta?r, 425-430. This work

should not be confused with the work on logic by the same author, Tahdhib

al-mantiq, which was apparendy studied at the primary level of medrese edu

cation, and also customarily cited as "Sa\du d-Din;" see Izgi, Osmanh

Medreselerinde Ilim, 164. 39. See Mehmet ?ener, "??rperd?," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 8:230-231; and Brockelmann, GAL, 1:193. For extant manuscripts of the work, see

M?B, al-Ta?r, 404-405. This is not to be confused with the work on gram mar by the same author, entided H?shiyah 'ala sharh al-Mufassal li-Ibn

H?jib, that was studied at the primary level of the medrese education and also

customarily cited as "??r?perd?"; see Izgi, Osmanh Medreselerinde I lim, 169.

197



sought to adjust content that was problematically expressive of al Zamakhshar? s Mu'tazili theology.40

6. Jibl [3]. This is the commentary on the Kashsh?f of al Zamakhshari entitled Fut?h al-ghayb fi al-kashfan qin?

'

al-rayb by Sharaf al-D?n al-Husayn b. Muhammad al-T?b? al-Sh?fn

(d.743/1342), a student of al-Ch?r?pardi (item 4, above). 4?

7. Mevl?n? Hamza. [1]. This is the commentary on the Anwar al-tan?l of al-Bayd?w? by the Anatolian Hanafi scholar, Nur al-D?n

Hamzah b. Mahmud al-Qar?m?ni (d.871/1468). 42

8. D?rr-i Mensur. [4]. This is the Quran commentary by the acclaimed and prolific Egyptian Sh?fn scholar, Jal?l al-D?n al-Suy?ti (d.911/1505), entitled al-Durr al-manth?rfi al-ta?r bi-al-mdth?r.43

9. Qurtubi. [1]. This is the Quran commentary by the Andalusian M?lik? scholar, Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad b. Ahmad A-Qunubl

(d.671/1273) entitled al-J?mi1fi alp kam al-quran.44

40. See J. A. Robson, "al-Baydaw?," EI2; Lutpi Ibrahim, "Al-Baydawi's Life and Works," Islamic Studies 18 (1979) 311-321; Yusuf ?evki Yavuz, "Beyz?v?," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 6:100-103. Al-Bayd?wi's ta?rhzs been

published numerous times, beginning with the Leipzig edition of 1848, and

the Cairo edition of 1880. On the work, see Ismail Cerrahoglu, "Envar?'t

Tenz?l ve Esrar? t-Tevil," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 11:260-261; for a sense of

its prolific circulation in the pre-modern period, see the list of extant manu

scripts in M?B, al-Ta?r, 280-334. 41. See the study on him by 'Abd al-Satt?r Husayn Zamm?t in his edition

of al-T?b?, al-Tiby?n fi al-bay?n, Beirut: Dar al-J?l, 1996; and Nuwayhid, Mu jam al-mufassi?n, 159. For extant manuscripts of Fut?h al-ghayb, see M?B, al-Tafsir, 389-394. 42. H?jj? Khal?fah, Kashf al-zun?n, 190; Nuwayhid, Mu jam al-mufassi?n, 164-5; for extant manuscripts of the work, see M?B, al-Tafsir, 472-73.

43. See the study by E. M. Sartain, fal?l al-Din al-Suyuti: Volume I, Biogra

phy and Background, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. The

Durr has been published several times, beginning with the Cairo edition of

1897. For a sense of the numerous extant manuscript copies, see M?B, al

Ta?r, 530-540. 44. See the representative study on him by Y?suf Abd al-Rahm?n Firt, al

Qiirtubi, Kuwait: Dar al-Qalam, 1982. His ta?r has been been published several times, beginning with the Cairo edition of 1952; for the numerous

extant manuscript copies of the work, see MAB, al-Tafsir, 261-270.

198



10. Teysir. [1]. This is the Quran commentary entitled al-Taysirfii al-ta?r by the Hanaf? M?tur?d?, Najm al-D?n Ab? Hafs 'Umar b.

Ahmad al-Nasafi (537/1142),45 the author of the famous M?tur?d? creed known as al-Aqidah al-Nasafiyyah.46

11. Q?s?nu [1]. This is the S?fi Quran commentary of Kam?l al D?n 'Abd al-Razz?q b. Ahmad al-Q?sh?n? al-Samarqand? (d.730/1329), entitled Tdwi??t al-quran. The work is often incor rectly ascribed to Muhyi al-D?n Ibn al-'Arabi (d.638/1240), to whose

mystical school al-Q?sh?ni belonged. 47

12. IsfahanL [1]. This is the Quran commentary of Shams al-Din Ab? al-Than?' Mahmud b. ?bd al-Rahm?n al-Isfah?ni (d.749/1349), a scholar claimed by both the Sh?fi'? and Hanaf? legal schools, entitled

Anw?r al-haq? 'iq al-rabb?niyyah fi ta?r al-?y?t al-quran?yyah.48 13. Buh?ri. [l].This is al-J?m?al-sah?h of al-Bukh?r?, the Hadith

collection compiled by Abu ?bd Allah Muhammad b. Ism?'?l al Bukh?ri (d.256/870) that acquired canonical status in Islam.49

14. Kirm?ni. [3]. This is the commentary on the Sahih of al Bukh?r? by the Baghd?di scholar Shams al-D?n Muhammad b Y?suf

45. For the author, see Nuwayhid, Mujam al-mufassi?n, 281; for extant

manuscript copies of the work, see M?B, al-Ta?r, 152-155. 46. For the use of this work in Ottoman medreses, see Bilge, Ilk Osmanh

Medreseleri, 53.

47. See Pierre Lory, Les Commentaires ?sot?riques du Coran d'apr?s Abd al

Razz?q al-Q?sh?n?, Paris: Les Deux Oc?ans, 1980. The five published edi tions of the work, beginning with the Cairo edition of 1866, have all also been misascribed to Muhyi al-D?n Ibn al-'Arab?. For the correction, see

Osman Yahya, Histoire et Classification de l' uvre d'Ibn Arabi, Damascus: Institut Fran?ais de Damas, 1964, 2:483-484. For extant manuscripts of the

work, see M?B, al-Ta?r, 369-70.

48. For the author, see Badr b. N?sir al-Badr, Abu al-Than?' al-Isfah?ni, Mahmud ibn Abd al-Rahm?n ibn Ahmad, 1749 h, hay?tu-hu wa ta?ru-hu, Riyad: Dar al-Muslim, 2002; for extant manuscripts of this unpublished work, see M?B, al-Ta?r, 405-6.

49. See J. Robson, "al-Bukh?r?," EI2. The work has, of course, been pub lished innumerable times; for a list of the vast number of extant manuscripts, see

al-Majma al-Malik? li-Buh?th al-Had?rah al-Isl?m?yyah, Mu assasat ?l al-Bayt, al-Fihris al-sh?mil li-al-tur?th al-'arabi al-isl?mi al-makht?t: al

hadith al-nabawi al-sha?f wa ul?mu-hu wa rij?lu-hu, Amman: Mu assasat Al al-Bayt, 1991, 493-565 (hereafter, M?B, al-Hadth).

199


Shahab AHMED and Nenad FlLIPOVlC

al-Kirm?n? (d.786/1384), entitled al-Kaw?kib al-dur?ri ft sharh Sahih al-Bukh?n.

50

15. ?ynL [5]. This is the commentary on the Sahih of al-Bukh?r? by the Cairene scholar, Badr al-D?n Mahmud b. Ahmad al-'Ayn? al Hanaf? (d.855/1451), entitled 'Umdat al-q?n sharh Sahih al Bukh?n. 51

16. Ibn-i Hacer. [4]. This is the commentary on the Sahih of al Bukh?r? by al-'Ayn? s great contemporary and rival, Ahmad Ibn Hajar al-'Asqal?n? al-Sh?fi'? (d.852/1448), entitled Path al-b?ri bi-sharh Sahih al-Bukh?n. 52

17. Mesabtb. [1]. This is the Hadith collection entitled Mas?bih al-sunnah comprised of Hadiths selected by al-Husayn b. Mas'?d Ibn al-Farr?' al-Baghawi al-Sh?fi'? (d.516/1122) from earlier canonical collections.

53

18. Zeyn? l-'Areb. [1]. This is the commentary on the Mas?bih al-sunnah of al-Baghawi by Zayn al-'Arab 'Ali b. cUbayd Allah b. Zayn al-D?n (fl. 758/1357). 54

50. For the author, see Kahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin, 3:784; the work was

published in Cairo in 25 volumes by Matba'at al-Bah?yyah al-Misr?yyah, 1933-64. For a list of the numerous extant manuscripts, see MAB, al

Haa?th, 1308-1319.

51. For the author, see Kahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin, 3:797-798; and W. Marc?is, "al-Ayn?," EI2; the work was first published in Istanbul in 11

volumes by Dar al-Tib?'ah al-'Amirah in 1890. For the numerous extant

manuscripts, see M?B, al-Haaith, 1096-1107.

52. See F. Rosenthal, "Ibn Hajar," EI2. There are several editions and count less reprints of this work, including that of T?h? Abd al-Ra?f Sa'd et al, pub lished in 28 volumes by Maktabat al-Kulliy?t al-Azhar?yyah in 1978. For the

prodigious number of extant manuscripts, see M?B, al-Haaith, 1142-1160,

53. See J. Robson, "al-Baghaw?," EI2. The Mas?bih was first published from Cairo in 1876; for the very large number of extant manuscripts, see MAB,

al-Hadth, 1490-1507.

54. H?jj? Khal?fah, Kashf al-zun?n, 1699; Kahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin, 2:472. Ibn Hajar al-Asqal?ni, al-Durar al-k?minah fi ay?n al-mi'ah al th?minah, ed. Sayyid J?d al-Haqq, Cairo: D?r al-Kutub al-Hadithah, 3:152.

About thirty manuscript copies of this unpublished work exist in the Siiley maniye library in Istanbul, which is where the bulk of the surviving collec

tions of the Ottoman manuscript libraries of Istanbul are preserved; see also

M?B, al-Hadth, 1011-1013.

200



19. Muzhir. [1]. This is the commentary on the Mas?bih al-sun nah of al-Baghawi by Muzhir al-D?n al-Husayn b. Mahmud al-Zay d?n? (d.728/1328) entitled al-Mafi?hfi hall al-Mas?kh.55

20. Menhal. [1]. This is the commentary on the Mas?bih al-sun nah of al-Baghawi by 'Ali b. Sal?h al-D?n al-Sakh?m? (fl. 762/1361) entitled Manhal al-yan?bi 'fi shark al-Mas?bth.56

21. Mi?kzt-i T?bi. [1]. Al-Baghawi's Mas?bih al-sunnah was expanded by Wal? al-D?n Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah al-Khatib al-Tib r?z? (/7.737/1337) into a work entitled Mishk?t al-Mas?bih. The

Mishk?t-i Tib? is the commentary on the Mishk?t al-Mas?bih of al Khat?b al-Tibrizi by Sharaf al-D?n al-Husayn b. Muhammad al-T?b?

(d.743/1342), for whom see item 6, above. The title of the work is al K?shifi'an haq? 'iq al-sunan.57

22. CztnVu l-us?l. [1]. This is the Hadith collection entitled J?mi al-us?l li-ah?dith al-us?l compiled by Ab? al-Sa'?d?t al-Mub?rak Ibn al-Athir al-Jazari al-Sh?fi'i (d.606/1210) comprising the matns of all the Prophetic Hadith contained in the following mainly canonical

collections, but omitting the isn?ds: the Muwatta! of M?lik b. Anas, the Sahih of al-Bukh?ri, the Sahih of Muslim, the J?mi of al-Tir

midh?, the Sunan of al-Nas?'i, and the Sunan of Abu D?'?d. 58

55. For the author, see Kahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin, 1:643; H?jj? Khal? fah, Kashf al-zun?n, 1699. Thirteen manuscript copies of this unpublished

work exist in the Siileymaniye library in Istanbul; see also M?B, al-Hadith, 1546-47. 56. For the author, see Kahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin, l-A'bl', for the work, see H?jj? Khal?fah, Kashf al-zun?n, 1701; Bagdatli Ism?'?l Pa?a, ?d?h al

makn?nfi al-dhayl ala Kashf al-zun?n an as? mi al-kutub wa al-fun?n, ed.

?erefettin Yaltkaya and Kilisli Rifat Bilge, Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basimevi, 1945, 2:490. Three copies of this unpublished work exist in the Siileymaniye library, and apparently only six worldwide; see M?B, al-Hadith, 1629.

57. See H?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 1700; the work was published by the Id?rat al-Qur'?n wa al-'Ul?m al-Isl?miyyah, Karachi, in 1993. About fifty

manuscript copies exist in the Siileymaniye library; see also M?B, al-Hadith, 1257-59.

58. See F. Rosenthal, "Ibn al-Ath?r," EI2. For the work, see H?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 535-537, and M. M. Azami, Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature, Indianapolis: American Trust Publications, 1977, 112. Ibn al

Ath?r does not cite variances in common matnsr, in such instances he follows

201


Shahab AHMED and Nenad FiLIPOVic

23. Muslim. [1]. This is the Sahih Muslim, the Hadith collection compiled by Muslim b. Hajj?j al-Nays?b?ri (d.259/874) that acquired canonical status. 59

24. ?erh-i Miislim-i l-Nevevi. [1]. This is the commentary on the Sahih of Muslim entitled al-Minh?j fi sharh Sahih Muslim b Hajj?j by Yahy? b. Sharaf al-Nawawi (d.676/1277), a Sh?fn scholar of Damascus.60

25. Hid?ya. [1]. This is al-Hid?yah fi al-fur?* a compendium of Hanaf? law by Burh?n al-D?n Ali b. Abi Bakr al-Marghin?ni

(d.593/1197). 61 Al-Marghin?ni wrote the work as a commentary on his own Bid?yat al-mubtadi\ which was, in turn, based on two impor tant early works of Hanafi law, the fundamental al-J? m? al-saghir of

Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Shayb?ni (d.187/805)62 and al-Mukhtasar of Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Qud?ri al-Baghd?di (d.428/1037).63

either al-Bukh?r? or Muslim. The J?mi' al-us?l was edited by Muhammad Hamid al-Fiq? and published from Cairo in 12 volumes by Matba at al-Sun nah

al-Muhammadiyyah, 1949-53. For a list of the numerous extant manu

script copies, see MAB, al-Hadith, 484-491.

59. See G. H. A. Juynboll, "Muslim Ibn Hadjdj?j," EI2. This work has, of course, been published innumerable times. For the very large number of extant

manuscripts, see M?B, al-Hadith, 574-590. 60. For the author, see Kahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin, 4:98. There are several published editions, such as Cairo: Matbaat Hij?zi, 1930 (18 vol umes). For the large number of extant manuscripts, see MAB, al-Hadith, 1613-1624.

61. See W. Heffening, "al-Marghin?ni," EI2, Y. Meron, "Margh?n?n?, His

Method and His Legacy," Islamic Law and Society 9 (2002), 410-416; Ibn Abi al-Wafa' al-Qurashi, al-Jaw?hir al-mudiyyah fi tabaq?t al-Hanafiyyah,

Hyderabad: D?'irat al-Ma?rif al-'Uthm?n?yyah, 1915, 2:204-206. For the

work and a long list of the commentaries thereon, see H?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 2031-2040; Cengiz Kallek, "el-Hidaye," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 17:471-473. The text of the Hiaayah has been published numerous times,

beginning with the Calcutta lithograph of 1833-37, and the Cairo edition of 1908. It was translated into English as early as 1791 at the order of Gover

nor-General and Council of Bengal, on account of its importance in Mughal North India. For a partial list of the numerous extant manuscripts, see Brock

elmann, GAL, S.I: 344-45. 62. For this work and its numerous commentaries, see H?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 561-64. It was published by Id?rat al-Qur'?n wa al-'Ul?m al

Isl?m?yyah, Karachi, in 1987.

63. For this work and its numerous commentaries, see H?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 1631-1634. It was first published in Bombay in 1885.

202



26. Nih?ya. [1]. This is the commentary on the Hid?yah of al Marghin?ni entitled al-Nih?yah fi fur? 'al-fiqh al-Hanafi composed by Hus?m al-D?n Husayn b. 'Ali al-Sighn?q? (d.711/1311), who was a student of another author in this syllabus, Hafiz al-D?n al-Nasafi (see item 29, below). M

27. G?yet? l-bey?n. [3]. This is the commentary on the Hid?yah of al-Marghin?ni entitled Gh?yat al-bay?n wa n?dirat al-aqr?n by

Qiw?m al-D?n Am?r K?tib b. Am?r 'Umar al-Itqan? (d.758/1356), who taught in Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo.65

28. EkmeL [1]. This is the commentary on the Hid?yah of al Margh?n?n? by Akmal al-D?n Muhammad b. Mahmud al-B?bart?

(d.786/1384), entitled al-Tn?yahfi sharh al-Hid?yah. Al-B?barti was a student of Shams al-D?n al-Isfah?ni who spent much of his career in

Cairo.66

64. There are two other commentaries on the Hid?yah that bear the title al

Nih?yah. One of these is Nih?yat al-kifiyah fi dir?yat al-hid?yah by 'Umar b. Sadr al-Shari ah al-Awwal (d.672/1273), for which see H?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 2033, and Bilge, Ilk Osmanh Medreseleri, 48; and the other al

Nih?yah by Badr al-D?n al-'Ayn? (d.855/1451; see H?jji Khalifah, Kashf al zun?n, 2034) who is the author in item 15, above. However, only two copies of the first work and four of the second exist in the Siileymaniye library, while there are twelve copies in the Siileymaniye of the Nih?yah of al-Sighn?qi,

which is also the first of the numerous commentaries on the Hid?yah cited

by H?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 2032. H?jji Khalifah identifies al-Sigh n?qi as al-Marghin?ni s student (this is followed by Kahh?lah, Mu jam al mu'allifin, 2:623) but the disparity in their death dates makes this highly unlikely. See the study of al-Sighn?qi by Fakhr al-Din Sayyid Muhammad Q?nit, in his edition of al-Sighn?qi, al-K?fi bi-sharh al-Bazdawi, Riyad: Maktabat al-Rushd, 2001, 1:38-80 (the present work is cited at 70). 65. For the author, see Kahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin, 1:398; and Ahmet Akgiindiiz, "Itk?n?," TDVIslam Ansiklopedisi, 23:464-465. There are about

twelve manuscript copies of this work extant in the Siileymaniye library; see

also al-Majma' al-Maliki li-Buh?th al-Had?rah al-Isl?miyyah, Mu assasat Al al-Bayt, al-Fihris al-sh?mil li-al-tur?th al-araU al-isl?nu al-makht?t: al-fiqh wa us?lu-hu, Amman: Mu assasat ?1 al-Bayt, 1999-ongoing, 6:368-381

(hereafter, M?B, al-Fiqh). 66. See the study of him by Muhammad Mustafa Ramadan Sufayh in his introduction to his edition of al-B?barti, Sharh al-Talkf?s, Tarablus, 1980; also Arif Aytekin, "B?bert?," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 4:377-378. For the work, see H?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 2034; it was lithographed in

203


Shahab AHMED and Nenad FiLIPOVIC

29. ZeyleX. [1]. This is the commentary authored in Cairo by Fakhr al-D?n 'Uthm?n b. 'Ali al-Zayla'? (d.743/1342) on the com pendium of Hanaf? law entitled Kanz al-daq?'iq fi Jur?al-Hanafiyyah by Hafiz al-D?n Ab? al-Barak?t 'Abd Allah b. Ahmad al-Nasafi

(d.711/1310). AJ-Zayla'i entitled his commentary Tabyin al-haq? 'iq.67 30. Q?d? H?n. [1]. This is the collection of legal opinions

[fiat?wa) of the Hanafi jurist Fakhr al-Din Hasan b. Mans?r al-Izjandi al-Fargh?ni Q?'dikh?n/Qazikh?n (d.592/1196), known as the Fat?w? Q?dikh?myyab/Qazikh?niyyah.68

31. Hul?sa. [1]. This is the collection of legal opinions of the Hanafi jurist Iftikh?r al-Din T?hir b. Ahmad al-Bukh?r? (d.543/1147) entitled Khul?sat al-fat?w?.69

32. Q?m?s. [1]. This is the Arabic dictionary entitled al-Q?m?s al-muhit wa al-q?b?s al-wasit al-j?mV li-m? dhahaba min kal?m al arab sham?tit by the widely-travelled Majd al-Din Muhammad b.

Yaq?b al-Fir?z?b?di (d.817/1414).70

Calcutta in 1830-37. There are about fifty manuscript copies extant in the

Siileymaniye library; see further, MAB, al-Fiqh 6:300-320.

67. For the author, see Kahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin, 2:365. For the work, see H?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n 1515. There are about sixty manuscript copies of this work extant in the Siileymaniye library; see also, MAB, al-Fiqh, 2:242-261.

68. For the author, see Kahh?lah, Mu jam al-mu'allifin, 1:594, Ibn Abi al Wara\ al-Jaw?hir al-mudiyyah, 1:326-327; and Ahmet ?zel, "K?d?h?n",

TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 24:121-123. The work has been published several times beginning with the 19th century edition from al-Matbaah al-Maym?

n?yyah in Cairo; see also H?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 1227-1228; and for a partial list of extant manuscripts, see Brockelmann, GAL, S.1:643-44.

69. For the author, see Kahh?lah, Mujam al-mu'allifin, 2:9; Ihn Abi al Wafa\ al-Jaw?hir al-mudiyyah, 2:10-11; M. Esat Kili?er, "Buh?r?, T?hir b.

Ahmed," TDV I slam Ansiklopedisi, 6:376. The work was recently published in Quetta by al-Maktabah al-R?shid?yyah, 2002; see also the description in

H?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 718. There are about fifty manuscript copies of this work extant in the Siileymaniye library; see further MAB, al-Fiqh, 3:1031-1045. 70. For the author, H. Fleisch, "al-Fir?z?b?di," EI2, and Kahh?lah, Mujam al-mu'allifin, 3:777; for the work, see H?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 1306 1310. Al-Q?m?s al-muhit has been published numerous times, beginning

with the Calcutta edition of 1817, and the B?l?q edition of 1865.

204



33. Cevheri. [1]. This is the Arabic dictionary by Ism?'?l b. Ham m?d al-Jawhari al-F?r?bi (d.393/1003) entitled al-Sih?bfi al-lughah.n

34. Tacil l-esttuV. [1]. This would appear to be the dictionary entitled T?j al-asm?

'

fi al-lughah of which H?jji Khalifah says "col lected in it are the Kit?b al-asm? 'of al-Zamakhshar?,72 the Kit?b al s?mi of al-Mayd?ni,73 and the Sih?h of al-Jawhari [item 33 above], arranged according to the arrangement of the Sih?h" H?jji Khalifah does not identify the compiler of the work, two unattributed copies of which appear to be extant in the Siileymaniye library.74 Brockel

mann reports a further Siileymaniye manuscript work of this title attributed to an unidentifiable Nur Allah al-Halab?, but we were

unable to examine this manuscript to compare it to the other two.75

35. Tevzth. [1]. This is al-Tawdih fi hall ghaw?mid al-Tanqih by Sadr al-Shari'ah al-Th?ni

'Ubayd Allah b. Mas ud al-Mahb?b? al Bukh?r? (d.747/1346), a commentary on the authors own work on Hanafi jurisprudence entitled al-Tancph fi al-us?l.76

36. Tel?h. [1]. This is the commentary on the Tancjih al-us?l of Sadr al-Shar?'ah al-Bukh?r? by Sa'd al-Din al-Taft?z?ni (d.791/1389 ;

71. For the author, see L. Kopf, "al-Djawhari," EI2, and Kahh?lah, Mujam al-mu'allifin, 1:362; for the work, see H?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 1071 1073. The Sih?h has been published numerous times beginning with the

B?l?q edition of 1865. 72. The Kit?b al-asm?' of al-Zamakhshar? (for whom see item 1, above) seems to be now lost.

73. This is the Kit?b al-s?mi fi al-as?mt by Ahmad b. Muhammad al-May d?ni al-Nays?b?ri (d. 518/1124) for whom see Kahh?lah, Mujam al-mu'al lifin, 1:240. For extant manuscript copies of the work see GAL, S.1:506-507.

74. See H?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 268. These are MS Kadizade Mehmet 526, and MS Yeni Cami 1122, copied in 898 and 964 respectively;

that is to say, before the date of the pr?senterai?. 75. This is MS Siileymaniye 811; see GAL, S.II:924. 76. For the author, see Brockelmann, GAL, S.IL300; and Ibn Qutlubughah, T?j al-tar?jim fi tabaq?t al-Hanafiyyah, ed. Gustav Fluegel, Leipzig: Brock haus, 1862, 168. For the Tancfih and the numerous commentaries thereon, see H?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 496-499. Al-Tawdih fi hall ghaw?mid al-Tancph was first published in Cairo by al-Maktabah al-Khayriyyah in 1904-1906; about fifty manuscript copies are extant in the Siileymaniye

library; see further, M?B, al-Fiqh, 2:918-942.

205


Shahab Ahmed and Nenad FlLIPOViC

see item 3, above), entitled al-Talwih fi kashf haq? 'iq al-Tanqih. H?jji Khalifah (d. 1067/165 7) describes this work as "sought after by every student in the field." 77

37. Hasan ?elebt. [1]. This is the supercommentary by Hasan ?eleb? b. Muhammad Sh?h al-Fan?ri (d.886/1482) on al-Taft?z?nis Talwih, called simply H?shiyah al? al-Talwih sharh al-TancphJ*

38. Pezdevi. [1]. This is the work of Hanafi jurisprudence by Fakhr al-Isl?m 'Ali b. Muhammad al-Pazdawi (d.482/1089) entitled al-Us?l.79

39. Ke?f. m This is the commentary on the Us?l of al-Pazdawi

entitled Kashf al-asr?r by 'Ala' al-Din 'Abd al-'Aziz b. Ahmad al Bukh?r? (d.730/1330), who spent his career in Transoxania.81

Analysis and conclusions

We may now proceed to an analysis of the curriculum of the

med?ris-i H?q?niye. This analysis is broadly aimed, firstly, ar answering

77. H?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 496. This work was first published in Cairo by al-Maktabah al-Khayriyyah in 1904-1906; about fifty manuscript

copies are extant in the Siileymaniye library, also see MAB, al-Fiqh, 2:771

790. It is incorrectly identified by Bilge, Ilk Osmanh Medreseleri, 50, as being a

commentary on the Tanqih al-ahaath fi raf al-tayammum al-ahd?th of

Sharaf al-Din Ahmad b. al-Hasan aJ-Hanafi (d.771/1369). 78. For the author, see Kahh?lah, Mujam al-muallifin, 544; and Cemil

Akpinar, "Hasan ?elebi, Fen?r?," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 16:312-315; for the

work, see H?jj? Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 496. It was first published in Cairo by al-Maktabah

al-Khayriyyah in 1904-1906; about thirty manuscript copies are

extant in the Siileymaniye library; see further MAB, al-Fiqh, 3:382-387.

79. For the author, Kahh?lah, Mujam al-mu'allifin, 2:501; for the work, see

H?jji Khalifah, Kashf al-zun?7t, 112-113. This was first published in Istan bul in 1890. 80. In the

original document, there is no numeral written under this citation to indicate the number of volumes.

8.1. On the author, see Kahh?lah, Mujam al-mu'allifin, 2:157-58; Ibn Abi al Wafa', al-faw?hir al-mudiyyah, 2:96-97; and Fahrettin Atar, "Abd?laz?z el

Buh?r?," TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi, 1:186-187. On the work, see H?jj? Kha lifah, Kashf al-zun?n, 112. This was first published, along with the Us?lo?

al-Pazdawi, in Istanbul in 1890. There are about fifty manuscript copies in

the Siileymaniye library.

206



the question of what, if anything, the curriculum tells us about the official identity of Ottoman Islam, and secondly at identifying what, if anything, the curriculum tells us about the historical development of Islamic scholarly traditions.

The thirty-nine titles in the curriculum of the med?ris-i H?q?niye fall in the following subject areas: twelve works of tafsir (Quranic exe gesis), twelve works of Hadith, five works of legal theory (jurispru dence, us?l al-fiqh), seven works of positive law (fur? al-fiqh)

? mak

ing twelve works of fiiqh in total, and three Arabic lexicons. It is

immediately notable that there are no books on any preparatory sub

jects, such as grammar, syntax or logic, and no books on subjects that we know to have formed a part of the intermediate level of the medrese curriculum, such as theology. Thus, the content of the curriculum confirms our initial identification of the med?ris-i H?q?niye as the

highest grade in the medrese hierarchy, the present syllabus being very much a course of advanced study that is undertaken after all prepara tory subjects have been completed. Certainly, the fifty-five volumes

82

of the syllabus would have amounted to a rigorous and demanding course of study that provided a thorough exposure to the fields of

ta?r, H?dith, and Hanafi fitqh. In considering the tafsir works in the syllabus, the most striking

feature is the centrality to the curriculum of the Quran commentary of Jar Allah al-Zamakhshari (d.538/1144), the Kasbsb?fi Of the eleven ta?rs other than the Kashsh?fi eight derive, in some form or another, from that work ? and even the remaining three are chronologically

82. It should be noted here that the volume numbers given for some of the

works are somewhat puzzling. For example, the J?mi' al-ahk?m of al-Qur tubi (item 7) is given as being in just one volume, when the work is much too long for that

-

certainly no existing manuscript copy seems to be bound

in a single tome (see M?B, al-Ta?r, 261-270). This is also the case with the ta?r of Shams al-D?n al-Isfah?n? (item 12; M?B, al-Ta?r, 405-406). It

may be that the numerals written under the citations in the document refer to

something other than the number of volumes, but the latter understand

ing is consonant with conventional practice. It is more likely that the scribe

did not pay attention to the number of volumes in some cases and wrote

them incorrecdy - but it is also hard to square this with the evident concern

for tallying the volumes reflected in the remark, "Together they are fifty-five," that appears after the citations.

207


Shahab AHMED and Nenad FlLIPOVIC

subsequent to it, indicating, perhaps, that it was regarded in the Ottoman academy as something of watershed in the history of

Quranic exegesis. The inclusion of the Kashsh?fim the syllabus is on the one hand unsurprising: al-Zamakhshari was himself, like the

Ottomans, by legal school a Hanafi, and by ethnicity a Turk, while the

widespread recognition accorded to the Kashsh?f in the centuries between its production and the promulgation of the present syllabus is reflected in the fact that about a hundred complete manuscript copies of the work still survive from that initial period of 550 95OH. 83 However, the fact that the Kashsh?fiwzs not merely one tafsir in the

syllabus, but was chosen as the fundamental Quran commen

tary in the Ottoman curriculum is remarkable in view of al Zamakhshari s problematic theological identity: al-Zamakhshari was a

Mu'tazil?84 and in the Sunni world of the 10th/l6rh century, Mu'tazil ism was overwhelmingly considered to be beyond the pale of legiti

mate belief. Indeed, the Kashsh?f, which has been called an "outspo ken Mu'tazili book" 85 was generally seen by non-Mu'tazilis as brilliant in its linguistic and rhetorical exposition of the Quran, but as theo logically flawed and suspect.

86 It is for this reason that the authors of the commentaries on the Kashsh?f that are on the present syllabus

-

al-Qutb al-Shir?zi (d.710/1311), Sa'd al-Din al-Taft?z?ni (d.791/1389), Fakhr al-Din al-Ch?r?pardi (d.746/1346), and Sharaf al-D?n al-Tibi (d.743/1342) - regularly interject to correct al Zamakhshari's more distinctively Mu'tazili interpretations, while the

tafsir of al-Bayd?wi (d.716/1315), as noted earlier, is effectively "a condensed and amended edition of al-Zamakhshari's Kashsh?f

87 in which al-Bayd?wi reworked content that was problematically expres sive of al-Zamakhshari's Mu'tazili theology to bring it into line with

83. See MAB, al-Ta?r, 155-166. 84. On al-Zamakhshari's

"broadly based, catholic Mu'tazilism," see Wilferd

Madelung, "The Theology of al-Zamakhshari," Actas DelXII Congreso de la

U.E.A.I. (Malaga, 1984), Madrid: Union Europ?enne d'Arabisants et d'Is lamisants, 1986, 484-495, at 495.

85. Madelung, "The Theology of al-Zamakhshari," 485. 86. See the opinions of scholars on the Kashsh?f gathered by Muhammad

Husayn al-Dhahabi, al-Ta?r wa al-mufassir?n, Beirut: Dar al-Qalam, n.d., ?:435-442. 87. J.A.Robson, "al-Bayd?wi," EI2.

208



Ashari formulations 88 (it is probably for this reason that al-Bayd?wi s tafiir came, by the 12th/18th century, to outstrip that of al

Zamakhshari in circulation and standing).89 The fact that the com mentaries on the Kashsh?f do not merely explicate, but often disagree with the text would presumably have also served to expose students to the dialectics of disputation in exegesis. Something similar might have been achieved by the inclusion of the tafsir of Shams al-Din al

88. See the studies by Lupti Ibrahim, "The Concept of Divine Justice according to al-Zamakhshari and al-Baydawi," Hamdard Islamicus 3A (Spring 1980) 3 17; "The Place of Intercession in the Theology of al-Zamakhshari and al

Baydawi," Hamdard Isl?micas 4.3 (Autumn 1981) 3-9; "Discussions about the Attributes of God between al-Zamakhshari and al-Baydawi," Hamdard

Islamicus 5.4 (Winter 1982) 3-23; and "A Comparative Study of the Views of az-Zamakhshari and al-Baydawi about the Position of the Grave Sinner," Islamic Studies 29 (1982)55-73. 89. An examination of Izgi s lists of books reveals that the Kashsh?f was studied by Ta?kopriz?de a few decades before the promulgation of the pres ent curriculum (in addition, Tagk?priz?de taught a commentary on the

Koshsh?fthat does not appear in the present curriculum, that of al-Sharif al

Jurj?ni), by Seyyid Feyzull?h Efendi in the second half of the 11th/17th cen tury (along with unnamed commentaries), and by Nebiefendiz?de in the sec ond half of the 12*718* century. Al-Bayd?wi s Anw?r al-tan?l appears in

many more of Izgi s book lists, beginning with Ta?k?priz?de, but especially in those from the 11th/17th and 12th/18th centuries, namely: the anonymous llth/17th century author of Izgi s Cetvel 7, H?jji Khalifah (d. 1067/1658), Ish?q al-Toqadi (d. 1100/1689), Seyyid Feyzull?h Efendi (d. 1115/1703),

Nebiefendiz?de (d.1200/1785), Bursali Ismail Haqqi (d. 1037/1725), the Kev?kib-i seba (written 1155/1741)- which describes it as the "furthest goal and highest purpose of the science of ta?r [maqsad-i aqs? ve matlab-i a( l? o?an 'ilm-i te?r-i ?erif\," and Erzir?mli Ibrahim Haqqi (d. 1194/1780) -

who describes it as the "peak [nih?yet]" of the study of the science of ta?r,

see Izgi, Osmanh Medreselerinde I Urn, 1:163-176. For the importance of al

Bayd?wi s ta?r in the scholarly debates held in the Ottoman palace in the 12th/18th century, see Madeleine Zilfi, "A medrese for the Palace: Ottoman

Dynastic Legitimation in the Eighteenth Century", Journal of the American Oriental Society113 (1993), 184-191, at 186-187; for the performance of al Bayd?wi s ta?r in public ceremonies in 12th/18th century Istanbul, see

Mouradgea d'Ohsson, Tableau General de l'Empire Othoman, Paris: L'Im

primerie de Monsieur Firmin Didot, 1788-1824, 7 vols, 2:468-469. In all, there are many more extant manuscripts of the Anw?r al-tanzi I than there are

of the Kashsh?f see M?B, al-Ta?r, 280-334 and 155-188, respectively.

209



Isfah?ni (d.749/1349) who based his commentary on the Kashsh?f and on the Mafi?h al-ghayb of the Sh?fi'i Ashar? scholar Fakhr al-D?n al-R?zi (d.606/1210), the latter work being characterized by an "anti

Mu'tazili" stance.90 It is further noteworthy that the authors of the

selected commentaries on the Kashsh?f'were, unlike the Ottomans themselves, all Ash aris, and not M?turidis

- their presence indicates a

doctrinal inclusiveness on the part of the department of the ?eyhulis l?m, at least as far theology and exegesis are concerned. Doubtless, this

has to do with the fact that these works were all authored during the 8th century H, a time when the fundamental doctrines of Ashar? and

M?tur?d? theology coalesced in a significant degree 91 (it is a pity that

our document does not list the works prescribed for the study of theo

logy at the middle levels of the medrese curriculum).92 But in the final analysis, it is evident that al-Zamakhshari s commentary was deemed

to be of such brilliance that it was made the fundamental text in the

tafsir curriculum of the med?ris-i H?q?niye despite its Mu'tazili con tent ? and despite the availability of a long tafsir by as important a

M?turid? as Najm al-D?n Abu al-Hafs al-Nasafi (d.537/1142) whose al-Taysirfi al-ta?r was included in the syllabus, but not as the foun dational text.

The Kashsh?f \s very much a ta?r bi-al-ra'y ? that is, an exegesis

arising from rhe authors direct hermeneutical engagement with the text of the Quran. The syllabus also includes one work that is a tafsir hi-al-math?r - a commentary which is essentially comprised of

reports from earlier Quran commentaries. This is al-Durr al-manth?r of the acclaimed Egyptian scholar, Jal?l al-D?n al-Suy?ti (d. 911/1505), which is made up of reports drawn from several ta?rs compiled in the first four centuries of Islam, occasionally accompa nied by al-Suy?ti s own interjections. The presence of this work makes available to the students a broad range of the early Islamic exegetical tradition. The fact that al-Suy?ti died only sixty years before the

present syllabus was drawn up is expressive not only of how swiftly he

90. See McAuliffe, Quranic Christians, 63-71, at 69. 91. On this, see Wilferd Madelung, "The Spread of M?tur?dism and the

Turks," in Actas do IV Congresso de Estudos Arabes e Isl?micos, Coimbra-Lisboa

1968, Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1971, 109-168, at 166. 92. On theology works taught in medreses, see Yazicioglu, Le kal?m et son r?le,

54-65.

210



became recognized as a scholar of historic standing, but also of the

receptiveness of the Ottoman canon to new works. He is the most

recent author included in the canon. The Kashsh?f is also not primarily a legally-oriented commentary,

and the authors of the curriculum seem to have acknowledged this by including on the list al-J?m? fi ah kam al-qur*?n of al-Qurtubi (d.671/1273). Given, as we will see below, that all the law books on the list are by Hanafis, it is noteworthy that al-Qurtubi was a M?liki.

The choice of al-Qurtubi s ta?r was probably influenced by the fact that it is the longest and least partisan of the legally-oriented Quran commentaries: al-Qurtubi includes the arguments of the different legal schools in his commentary, and sometimes aligns himself with other than the M?liki position.93

The fact that the creators of the curriculum should have made a

point of including a S?fi ta?r is certainly striking, as it indicates that the study of S?fi hermeneutics was considered a necessary part of the education of the mid-10th/16th century representatives of official

Ottoman Islam. That the work in question should be that of a fol lower of the thought of Muhyi al-Din Ibn al-Arabi

- Abd al-Razz?q al-Q?sh?nis (d.730/1329) commentary, as noted above, has histori cally been ascribed to Ibn al-Arabi

? is also significant. Despite the very mixed reception of Ibn al-Arabi in some parts of the Arab world, he was venerated by the Ottoman state. Thus, Ibn al-Arabi s tomb

was restored by S?leymans father, Yavuz I Selim, his orthodoxy affirmed in a famous fativ? by Selim s Kadiasker of Anatolia, Kemal

pa?az?de (who went on to become the second ?eyhulisl?m of S?ley m?n), and his works taught in the Ottoman medreses.94 It is note worth that Eb? s-Su??d in his correspondence with S?leym?n invokes

Ibn al-Arabi as an authority.95 Finally, it should be noted that the syl labus contains no work of ulum al-quran- the sciences of the Quran;

93. See al-Dhahabi, al-Ta?r wa al-mufassi?n, 2:503-506. 94. See the entry by A.Ate?, "Ibn al-Arab?, Muhyi al-D?n," EI2; and

H?seyin Atay, "Ilmi Bir Tenkit ?rnegi Olarak Ibn Kem?l Pa?anin Muhyid din B. Arabi Hakkinda Fetvasi," in S. Hayri Bolay, Bahaeddin Yediyildiz and

Mustafa Sait Yezicioglu (eds.), Tokat Valiligi ?eyhulisl?m Ibn Kem?l Arastirma Merkezinin Tertip Ettigi ?eyhulisl?m Ibn Kem?l Sempozyumu Tebligler ve Tartts malar (Tokat 26-29 Haziran 1985), Ankara: T?rkiye Diyanet Vakfi Yayinlan, 1986, 263-275. Mustafa Tahrali, "A General Outline of the Influence of Ibn Arabi on the Ottoman Era," Journal of the Muhyiddin

211


Shahab AHMED and Nenad FlLIPOVIC

this subject might have already been taken by students at the interme diate level, but there is no documentary confirmation of this.

The second subject covered in the syllabus is Hadith. Here, the first point to be noted is that only two of the canonical Hadith col lections are included in their entirety: the respective Sahihs of al

Bukh?r? (d.256/870) and Muslim (d.259/874). The other collections appear within the J?mi' al-us?l of Ibn al-Ath?r (d.606/1210) which, as noted before, comprises the matns of all the Hadiths contained in al-Bukh?ri, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi (d.279/892), al-Nas?'i (d.303/915),

Abu D?w?d (d.275/888), and the Muwatta of M?lik (d.179/795), but omits the isn?ds. Three long commentaries on the Sahihs of al Bukh?ri, and one on the Sahihs of Muslim are prescribed, but none on any of the other collections. Clearly, the Sahihs of al-Bukh?r? and

Muslim were viewed by the makers of the present Ottoman curricu

lum as of superior utility to the other Hadith collections.96 It is inter

esting that the respective commentaries of both Badr al-Din al-Ayni (d.855/1451) and Ibn Hajar al-Asqal?ni (d.852/1448) appear in the syllabus, given that these two scholars were known for the disagree

ments between their commentaries to the point that Ibn Hajar authored a polemic directed specifically against al-Ayni s sharh of al Bukh?ri. 97 The other Hadith work that appears in full, along with

Ibn Arabi Society 26 (1999), 42-54, provides an important counterbalance to the perhaps overly Arabo-centric focus of the reception-history of Ibn al

Arabi presented in Alexander Knysh, Ibn Arabi in the Later Islamic Tradition: The Making of a Polemical Image in Islam, Albany: State University of New

York Press, 1999.

95. For Eb? s-Su ?d's citation of Ibn al-Arabi in his correspondence with

S?leym?n, prefaced by the phrase ?eyhMuhyi d-Din-i Arehi naqlider-kih, see Mecm?d-i MeyB, MS Gazi Husrev Beg, I 2012, 75a.

96. Ta?k?priz?de (d.968/1561), writing a few decades prior to the promulga tion of the present curriculum, says that the Sahihs of Bukh?ri was studied in

the Mifi?h /h?rte, and d?hil/altmish (60 aq?e) medreses. In the Kev?kib-i seb'a, written about two centuries later, in 1155/1741, and in the curriculum given by Ziy?'u d-Din Ahisqavi (d. 1218/1803), it is stated that all six canonical

Hadith collections are studied in the medreses. See Izgi, Osmanh Medreselerinde Ilim 1:170-71, 166, and 173, respectively.

97. Ibn Hajar, Intiq?d al-i'tir?d fi al-radd al? al-Ayni fi sharh al-Bukh?n, ed. Hamd? b. Abd al-Maj?d al-Salaf? and Subh? b. J?sim al-S?marr?'i, Riyad:

Maktabat al-Rushd, 1993; on their professional rivalry, see Anne Broad

bridge, Academic Rivalry and the Patronage System in Fifteenth-Century

212



three commentaries, is the Mas?bih al-sunnah of al-Baghawi (d.516/1122), which contains Hadith selected from the canonical collections and arranged by subject matter.98 The last Hadith work also derives from the Mas?bih al-sunnah, being a commentary of Sharaf al-Din al-Tibi (d.743/1342) on the expansion of the Mas? b?h by Wal? al-D?n al-Tibriz? {fil. 737/1337). It is noteworthy that no

works are prescribed that deal with the ul?m al-hadith, or method

ological sciences of Hadith. As with the ul?m al-quran, it may well be that this subject was studied at the intermediate le

Documents

Ahmed&Filipovic 2004 the Sultan's Syllabus