Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Faith, law and empire in the Ottoman ‘age of confessionalization’ (fifteenth–seventeenth centuries): the case of ‘renewal of faith’ 1

2013; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 28; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/09518967.2013.782670

1743-940X

Guy Burak,

Medieval Literature and History

Abstract The article explores the understudied theological-legal concept and practice of renewal of faith, an Ottoman innovation dating from the fifteenth century. It situates this practice within the context of the Ottoman and, more broadly, Mediterranean 'age of confessionalization', an age in which rulers and dynasts across the Mediterranean infused 'religious rhetoric into the processes of state and social formation'. This study focuses on the legal aspects of the Ottoman confessionalization project. It reconstructs the debate between various jurists concerning the practice of renewal of faith, and argues that this debate illustrates the multiple sites within the empire in which notions such as faith, 'orthodoxy', and unbelief were negotiated and articulated. Keywords: Ottoman Empiremuftifatwafaithrenewal of faithconfessionalizationSafavidsconversion Notes 1. I would like to thank Leslie Peirce, Everett Rowson, Tamer el-Leithy, Baki Tezcan, Baber Johansen, and the reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions. 2. See, for example, CitationHess, Forgotten Frontier; CitationGreene, Shared World; CitationDursteler, Venetians in Constantinople; CitationTabak, Waning of the Mediterranean; CitationGreene, Catholic Pirates; CitationPiterberg, Ruiz and Symcox, Braudel Revisited; CitationKrstić, Contested Conversions; CitationRothman, Brokering Empire; CitationDursteler, 'Speaking in Tongues'. 3. For a survey of the historiography on confessionalization in early modern Europe, see Krstić, Contested Conversions, 12–16; CitationBrady, 'Confessionalization: The Career of the Concept'; and the other articles in CitationHeadley, Hillerbrand and Papalas, Confessionalization in Europe. In his review of Krstić's book, Marc Baer has rejected her suggestion arguing, wrongly in my view, that the European and Ottoman experiences were radically different. See CitationBaer, 'Review of Contested Conversions'. 4. Krstić, Contested Conversions, 12–16. On the importance of the notion of renewal of faith in the Ottoman self-perception in the sixteenth century, see CitationMeshal, 'Antagonistic Sharī'as'. 5. See Leslie Peirce's study of a sixteenth-century heresy case in the court of Aintab: CitationPeirce, Morality Tales, 251–348. 6. CitationBenton, Search for Sovereignty, 2. 7. On the Ottoman learned hierarchy and the empire's legal landscape, see CitationZilfi, Politics of Piety; CitationBuzov, The Lawgiver; CitationAtcil, Formation of Ottoman Learned Class; CitationTezcan, 'The Ottoman Mevali'; CitationMundy and Saumarez Smith, Governing Property, chs 2–3; Meshal, 'Antagonistic Sharī'as'; CitationFitzgerald, Ottoman Methods of Conquest; CitationBurak, The Abu Hanifah of His Time. In addition to the Ḥanafī jurists, jurists who followed other Sunni schools of law operated across the empire. Their notions about faith still await study. 8. This extensive list was based on the rulings of several Ḥanafī jurists, and particularly on the rulings of the early fifteenth-century jurist Ibn al-Bazzāz. The seventeenth-century şeyhülislâm Çatacalı 'Alî Efendi, for instance, cites extensively al-Fatāwá al-Bazzāziyya by Ibn al-Bazzāz as his reference. In addition, he also cites passages from Khulāsat al-fatāwá by Iftikhār al-Dīn Ṭāhir b. Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Rashīd al-Bukhārī, and from Majmaʿ al-fatāwá by Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr al-Ḥanafī. See CitationÇatalcalı 'Alî Efendi, Fetâvâ-ı Çatalcalı, 86r–v. These works only establish that certain acts or sayings are signs of unbelief (kufr); they do not mention the concept of renewal of faith. 9. Several studies have been dedicated to these issues. Most relevant to my discussion here are: CitationIsutsu, Concept of Belief; CitationPeters and De Vries, 'Apostasy in Islam'; Wiederhold, 'Blasphemy against the Prophet (Sabb al-Rasul, Sabb al-Sahabah)'; CitationGriffel, 'Toleration and Exclusion'; CitationOmar, Apostasy in the Mamluk Period; CitationJohansen, 'Apostasy as Objective and Depersonalized Fact'. 10. CitationStewart, Islamic Legal Orthodoxy, 48. 11. Abū Hamp;#Citationx323;anīfa (?), 'The Testament of Abū Ḥanīfa', 57. 12. CitationAnonymous, 'A Later Ḥanafite Creed', 62–6. 13. CitationAl-Nasafī, 'al-Nasafī', 82–3. See also Sa'd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī's (d. 1390) commentary on al-Nasafī's creed: Citational-Taftāzānī, Commentary on the Creed of Islam, 107–15. 14. CitationMadelung, 'Early Doctrine concerning Faith', 233. See also CitationLewinstein, 'Notes on Eastern Hanafite Heresiography', 583–98. 15. CitationSchwartz, All Can Be Saved, 17–118; Rothman, 'Becoming Venetian'; Krstić, Contested Conversions; Dursteler, Venetians in Constantinople. On Messianic currents across the Mediterranean, see for example: CitationFleischer, 'Lawgiver as Messiah'; CitationDressler, 'Inventing Orthodoxy'; CitationGoldish, Sabbatean Prophets. 16. The list of works dealing with conversion is extremely long. Some of the most important studies on conversion in the Ottoman context are: CitationVryonis, Decline of Medieval Hellenism; CitationMinkov, Conversion to Islam; Krstić, Contested Conversions; CitationBaer, Honored by the Glory of Islam. 17. CitationKaramustafa, God's Unruly Friends; Krstić, Contested Conversions, 42–50; CitationOcak, Osmanlı Toplumunda; CitationTerzioğlu, 'Sufis in the Age of State-Building'. 18. Surprisingly little has been written on the concept of renewal of faith: CitationHeyd, Studies, 178 f.n.; CitationGerber, State, Society, and Law, 103; CitationPeirce, 'Law Shall Not Languish', 152; CitationDalkıran, Ibn-i Kemâl, 81–6. 19. Due to its absence from the kânûnnâmes, Uriel Heyd defined this legal practice as a 'sharī'a penalty'. Heyd, Studies, 178 f.n. 20. CitationHallaq, 'From Fatāwā to Furū''; , 'Legal Literature'; idem, Islamic Law on Land Tax; CitationMessick, 'The Mufti', 102–19. 21. Hallaq, 'From Fatāwā to Furū'', 40. 22. The eminent early sixteenth-century chief imperial jurisconsult CitationKemâlpaşazâde does not mention the concept in his manual al-Īḍâḥ fī sharḥ al-iṣlâḥ fī al-fiqh al-Ḥanafī, although he employs it quite frequently in his rulings. 23. In the eighteenth century, the formula associated in today's Turkey with the practice of renewal of faith was already in use. The eighteenth-century dragoman of the Swedish embassy in Istanbul, Ignatius Mouradega d'Ohsson, mentions the formula in his survey of the Ottoman Empire and its institutions (among other things). According to this formula, the statement of belief is based on six principles: belief in God, in his angels, in his books, in his Prophets, in the Day of Judgment, and in predestination. Should the believer denounce one of these principles, d'Ohsson explains, he should renew his faith and marriage. It is not clear, however, when the formula was first used. The important point is that the formula is intended to define positively what constitutes faith: CitationIgnatius Mouradega d'Ohsson, Tableau Général de L'Empire Othman, 1: 160–2. 24. Ibn al-Bazzāz, in his fatāwá collection, does not mention that the apostate should renew his faith, but does note the practice of renewal of marriage upon his repentance and his subsequent re-entry into the Muslim community. It is noteworthy that Ibn al-Bazzāz is using the category of outright apostasy (ridda): CitationIbn al-Bazzāz, al-Fatāwá al-Bazzāziyya, 6: 315–8. It is worth mentioning that Ibn al-Bazzāz worked for a while in the Ottoman domains. Taşköprüzade, in his al-Shaqāʾiq al-Nuʿmāniyya, reports that during his stay there he met al-Fanârî and discussed with him furūʿ-related issues (CitationTaşköprüzade, al-Shaqā'iq al-Nu'māniyyah, 21). ʿÂşiḳpaşazâde also mentions this visit in his chronicle (amp;#Citationx2BF;Âşiḳpaşazâde, Tevarih-i Âl-i Osman'dan ʿÂşiḳpaşazâde Tarîhî, 249). Later jurists, such as Khayr al-Dīn al-Ramlī, single out Ibn al-Bazzāz as a key figure in the development of the concept of renewal of marriage. See al-Ramlī, Fatāwá, 1: 106–7. 25. For the opinion of several leading Ḥanafī authorities from the eleventh to the sixteenth century on this issue, see CitationIbn al-Humām, Shar Fat al-qadīr, 4: 385–6. 26. CitationMollâ Arab, Fetâvâ-i Mevlânâ Arab, 79r. On Mollâ Arab, see CitationRepp, Müfti of Istanbul, 174–87. 27. CitationKarakaya-Stump, Subjects of the Sultan; Terzioğlu, 'Sufis in the Age of State-building'. 28. On the rise of the Safavids, see CitationAllouche, Origin and the Development; CitationBacque-Grammont, Les Ottomans, les Safavides et leurs voisins; CitationBabayan, 'Safavid Synthesis'; Dressler, 'Inventing Orthodoxy'. On the Kızılbaş in Anatolia, see also CitationZarinebaf-Shahr, 'Qızılbash "Heresy"'; CitationWinter, The Shiites of Lebanon, 7–20; Karakaya-Stump, Subjects of the Sultan. 29. The Ottoman-Safavid-Kızılbaş conflict has been often interpreted as a Sunnī-Shīʿī one. Nevertheless, the Sunnī-Shī'ī perspective obscures the complex dynamics of the conflict. The early Safavids, and especially Shāh Ismāʿīl, officially adopted Twelver Shīʿīsm as the Safavid state religion. Some scholars, such as Markus Dressler and others, however, have doubted the Safavid commitment to the newly adopted religion. As Dressler has suggested, it was 'little more than mere lip service' until late in the sixteenth century. Rather than advancing Twelver Shīʿīsm, the early Safavid state's 'Safavid-Kızılbaş' Islam promoted the claim that the Safavid ruler was a 'divine incarnation' and that the Safavid shāh, as a charismatic mahdī, would redeem his followers. Similar views of the sultan as mahdī proliferated in the Ottoman domains as well. Up to around the middle of the sixteenth century, Ottoman sultans portrayed themselves as charismatic figures. In the sixteenth century Sultan Süleymân claimed to be the mahdī of the time. Therefore, as Dressler and others have pointed out, an important element of the earlier stages of the Safavid-Ottoman conflict is the shared messianic discourse about the mahdī-sultan/shāh. Seen from this perspective, both the Safavids and the Ottomans were also competing over messianic authority. See Dressler, 'Inventing Orthodoxy', 159. 30. Dressler, 'Inventing Orthodoxy'; CitationAbisaab, Converting Persia. On the development of Ottoman religious hierarchy and Orthodoxy, see Repp, Müfti of Istanbul; CitationImber, Ebu's-Su'ud; Karamustafa, God's Unruly Friends; Peirce, Morality Tales, 251–75. More recently, Karakaya-Stump has considerably complicated the narrative of the Ottoman–Safavid rivalry. In her study of the dynamics between the Ottomans, the Safavids and the Kızılbaş communities in Anatolia, she has pointed to the persistence of the Sufi element in the self-identification of the Safavid Shāhs vis-à-vis their followers in Anatolia: Karakaya-Stump, Subjects of the Sultan. 31. On Şehzade Ḳorkud, see Citational-Tikriti's dissertation Şehzade Ḳorkud. 32. Citational-Tikriti, 'Kalam in the Service of State', 138. 33. Citational-Tikriti, 'Kalam in the Service of State', 140. 34. Citational-Tikriti, 'Kalam in the Service of State', 141–2. 35. Citational-Tikriti, 'Kalam in the Service of State', 143. 36. Citational-Tikriti, 'Kalam in the Service of State', 144. 37. Citational-Tikriti, 'Kalam in the Service of State', 147. 38. See also Griffel, 'Toleration and Exclusion', 339–50. 39. On Zenbilli 'Alî Cemâlî, see: Repp, Müfti of Istanbul, 197–224. 40. Zenbilli 'Alî Cemâlî, Fetâvâ, 75r. 41. Zenbilli 'Alî Cemâlî, Fetâvâ, 75r The question is also interesting in that it suggests that, as late as the early sixteenth century, it was not self-evident that both ḳânûn and şerî'at constituted integral elements of the Ottoman legal system, regardless of the manner in which şerî'at was defined in the Ottoman domains. While some segments of the Ottoman ruling elite tended to privilege (or even adhered exclusively to) ḳânûn, other segments of the imperial ruling and learned elites promoted a different view of the relationship between these discourses/legal systems of thought. 42. CitationKemâlpaşazâde, Fetâvâ, 19r. 43. CitationKemâlpaşazâde, Fetâvâ, 19v. 44. In other cases, the query emphasizes the status of the offender and the offended. For instance, a scholar cursing another scholar may present a different case than an ignorant layman cursing a scholar. Kemâlpaşazâde, Fetâvâ, 31v. 45. In other cases, the query emphasizes the status of the offender and the offended. For instance, a scholar cursing another scholar may present a different case than an ignorant layman cursing a scholar. Kemâlpaşazâde, Fetâvâ, 19v. 46. Peirce, 'Law Shall Not Languish', 152. 47. CitationEs'ad Efendi, Fetâvâ-i Es'ad Efendi, 48v. On Abaza Meḥmet Paşa and his rebellion, see for example CitationTezcan, Second Ottoman Empire, 173; CitationBarkey, Bandits and Bureaucrats, 223–5. 48. The contacts between the Safavids and their followers in Anatolia continued well into the seventeenth century. These contacts included the bestowal of hilâfetnâmes on selected followers in Anatolia and the despatch of religious treatises to Anatolia. In addition, members of the Kızılbaş/Alevi community in Anatolia travelled to Iraq and Aradabil, where they confirmed their credentials and allegiance to the Safavid order. Karakaya-Stump, Subjects of the Sultan, esp. chs 2–4. 49. Yahamp;#Citationx323;yâ Efendi, Fetâvâ, 95r. In another case, the late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century şeyhülislam Ṣun'ullah Efendi imposed punitive measures (taʿzîr) for reviling Muʿāwiya, the first Umayyad caliph and a target of the scorn of followers of ʿAlī, the fourth rightly-guided caliph and the first Shīʿī imām. See Samp;#Citationx323;un'ullah Efendi, Fetâvâ, 96r. In a report from 1619 concerning the Kızılbaş communities in Anatolia and the Balkans, Çeşmi Efendi argues that these communities regarded Shāh ʿAbbās as their spiritual leader (mürşid). Slightly later, in 1624, an Alevi letter mentions Shāh ʿAbbās as mürşid-i kâmil. CitationKarakaya-Stump, Subjects of the Sultan, 182–3; idem., 'Kızılbaş, Bektaşi, Safevi İlişkilerine Dair 17. Yüzyildan Yeni Bir Belge.' 50. A good example of the importance of the circumstances in which a blasphemy is uttered is a fatwá by şeyhülislâm Minḳârîzâde on cursing during tavla games. Since it is a common practice (örf), he argued, the curse is not blasphemous in meaning, although its literal content is. See Minkamp;#Citationx323;ârîzâde, Fetâvâ, 43v. 51. Heyd lists additional offences to which muftis applied this concept, such as merry-making with non-Muslims, and claiming to have knowledge of occult matters. Heyd, Studies, 178 f.n. 52. On the various types of punishment, see Heyd, Studies, 259–309; Peirce, Morality Tales, 311–48. 53. For example: CitationSa'dî Efendi, Fetâvâ-ı Sa'dî, 62r, 91r; Ṣun'ullah Efendi, Fetâvâ, 16v; 'CitationAtâullah Efendi, Fetâvâ, 44r. 54. Such is the case in the fatwá by Ismāʿīl al-Ḥāʾik discussed below. 55. Amnon Cohen and Elisheva Simon-Pikali have found several entries in the court records of sixteenth-century Jerusalem in which Jewish transgressors were subjected to discretionary punishment (taʿzīr). See Cohen and Simon-Pikali, Jews in the Moslem Religious Court, 11, 107, 147, 267. Metneşîzâde, for instance, has a section in his fatāwá collection dedicated to issues related to the taʿzīr of non-Muslims (dhimmis). See amp;#Citationx2BF;Abdürrahîm Menteşizade, Fetâvâ-i 'Abdürrahîm, 1: 123–6. 56. The concept of tawba and its relation to the concept of renewal of faith, however, still awaits further clarification. 57. Ibn Nujaym, for instance, permits the repentance (tawba) of the apostate (kāfir) in this world and the hereafter. There are four exceptions to this rule: if he reviled (sabba) the Prophet or other prophets, if he reviled Abū Bakr and ʿUmar, if he is a heretic (zindīq), or if he is a sorcerer (sāḥir). CitationIbn Nujaym, al-Fawāʾid, 73–4. 58. In his rulings on the issue of taking oaths on pain of excommunication, ʿAlî Cemâlî offers an interesting articulation of the distinction between the states of belief and unbelief. According to his formula, if a Muslim takes an oath on pain of explusion from the Muslim community and means it (yemîn olmak i'tiḳâdıla), he should only expiate for the broken oath (kefâret yemîn). On the other hand, if he, as Muslim, is in a state of unbelief (kâfir olmak i'tiḳâdıla), he should renew his faith and marriage. Zenbilli amp;#Citationx2BF;Alî Cemâlî, Fetâvâ, 49r. 59. CitationAl-Ramlī, al-Fatāwá al-Khayriyya, 1: 106–7. 60. I have not examined court records for this study. It is hoped that future studies based on court records may shed light on the procedure for renewal of faith. Heyd, who has examined some court records from Bursa, found some cases concerning renewal of faith: Heyd, Studies, 178 f.n. In late sixteenth to early seventeenth-century Ottoman Nicosia, this was also the case. See also CitationErdoğru, 'Lefkoşa Şer'î Mahkeme Tatnaklarında Şetm', 140. 61. al-Ramlī, al-Fatāwá al-khayriyya, 1: 106–7. 62. al-Ramlī, al-Fatāwá al-khayriyya, 1: 106–7 63. On the activity of jurists who did not hold a state appointment in the Ottoman province of Damascus, see CitationGerber, State, Society, and Law; idem., Islamic Law and Culture; CitationTucker, In the House of the Law; Burak, Abu Hanifah of His Time; Mundy and Saumarez Smith, Governing Property, chs 1–2. 64. CitationIbn Nujaym, al-Fatāwá al-Zayniyya. 65. CitationAl-Timūrtāshī, Fatāwá al-Timūrtāshī, 39v–40r. 66. These jurists even suggested that when necessary it is permissible to depend on weak prophetic traditions (aḥādīth), so the blasphemous speech act would not be counted as heresy or apostasy. Omar, Apostasy, 93. 67. CitationAl-Timūrtāshī, Mu'īn al-Muftī, 40–2. 68. On the Ḳâdîzâdeli movement, see CitationZilfi, 'The Kadizadelis'; Baer, Honored by the Glory of Islam. For a reassessment of the impact of the movement in the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries, see Citationel-Rouhayeb, 'The Myth of the Triumph'. 69. Al-Ramlī, al-Fatāwá al-khayriyyah, 1: 107. 70. Al-Ramlī, al-Fatāwá al-khayriyyah, 2: 182. 71. Ismāʿīl al-Ḥāʾik studied with leading Damascene jurists, such as Ismāʿīl al-Nābulusī (father of ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī), Ibrāhīm al-Fattāl and Muḥammad ʿAlā' al-Dīn al-Ḥaṣkafī (d. 1677), who was also appointed by the state to serve as the chief Ḥanafī mufti of Damascus. A brief glimpse at al-Murādī's biographical dictionary of eighteenth-century scholars and notables reveals that al-Ḥāʾik was quite a sought-after teacher, among Ḥanafīs and non-Ḥanafīs alike. See Citational-Murādī, Silk al-durar, 1: 256–8. 72. Burak, Abu Hanifah of His Time; Mundy and Saumarez Smith, Governing Property, chs 2–3. 73. Al-Hamp;#Citationx323;āʾik, al-Shifāʾ al-ʿalīl bi-fatāwá, 21v. 74. Al-Hamp;#Citationx323;āʾik, al-Shifāʾ al-ʿalīl bi-fatāwá, 21v 75. Al-Hamp;#Citationx323;āʾik, al-Shifāʾ al-ʿalīl bi-fatāwá, 21v 76. Mundy and Saumarez Smith, Governing Property, 3. 77. Ibn Abī Lutamp;#Citationx323;f al-Maqdisī, al-Fatāwá al-Raḥīmiyya, 48r–54v. 78. Boğaç Ergene argues that in the eighteenth century many cases were taken to another court for readjudication. Although this type of action was illegal, this seems to have occurred quite frequently: CitationErgene, Local Courts, 107. 79. On this point, see for example Burak, Abu Hanifah of His Time, chs 4–5.